
California man fights DUI charge for driving under influence of caffeine - setra
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/24/california-dui-caffeine-lawsuit-solano-county
======
dazbradbury
I overtook an off-duty police officer, who was driving his personal truck,
whilst on holiday in California a few years ago (from the UK).

At the next town, I was pulled over by a police car (bull horn, hand on gun,
full film-level drama). I had no idea why at the time. It was explained to me
that the off-duty officer was annoyed, and called the police station in the
next town.

I was told that the highway I was on was "not the autobahn" (I have never
travelled on an autobahn), and given a ticket for crossing a solid lane
marker. I hadn't at any point crossed a double yellow line marker. Not living
in the US meant fighting it was hard, so I paid for fear of not being allowed
back in the country on my next visit.

Lesson learned: people in positions of power, like this off-duty government
agent, will happily use that power if someone pisses them off - and systems
are in place to allow it. These systems need to be tested, fought, and abusers
penalised. I'm just sorry I didn't fight harder in this instance.

~~~
CaliforniaKarl
It's worth noting, you may have crossed a solid white line, instead of a solid
yellow line. That being said, the exact status of the solid white line in
California is annoyingly unclear.

Reference: [http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/09/28/can-you-cross-a-
solid-...](http://www.mercurynews.com/2012/09/28/can-you-cross-a-solid-white-
line-on-a-california-road/)

~~~
dazbradbury
I actually overtook when there was a broken line (apologies, would edit my
original comment if I could!), which my understanding was meant to state "you
can overtake if safe" \- the same in the UK.

I didn't go over the speed limit, and it was a super clear road (beautiful in
fact!) - my car just had more acceleration (not being a large truck).

------
twilightfog
_Abrams insisted the case was "never about caffeine," and she insisted that
Schwab had to have been under the influence of another drug that didn’t show
up in the test. Not all drugs do under standard rounds of testing._

To paraphrase: we didn't find anything to justify the charges, but we're still
going to tell everyone that he is guilty.

~~~
dx034
No, telling that someone is guilty can only be done by a court. Prosecutors
can say that they believe he could be guilty. In this case, they dropped that
and said that he's likely innocent.

The unfortunate thing in the US is just that most cases don't make it to
court, and a lot of people plead guilty to get a deal. This is not how the
system was designed, and not how it works in most other democracies.

~~~
charlesdm
This just shows significant parts of the government are rotten to the core.
It's an issue most likely to affect people who are unable to afford good
representation.

Let's be honest: courts in most western countries are only really accessible
to upper middle class and/or wealthier people. If you do not have proper
representation, you will probably lose in cases like these.

The fact that some random smuck is given this much power is shocking.

~~~
rayiner
The issue of plea bargaining isn't so simple as it's made out to be (by people
who don't have any idea of what the justice system actually does).

The _overwhelming_ majority of people that go through the justice system are
guilty. For every ambiguous charge, there are a dozen instances where someone
was caught with drugs on their person,[1] clearly identified in a security
tape robbing a store, etc. That's the bread and butter of the justice system.

Like every system, the courts have been optimized for the common case. That
certainly has costs in the uncommon case--as optimizing for the common case
always does. Maybe those costs are too much to bear. But it's not a simple
issue of government being "rotten to the core."

[1] Whether you think having drugs should or should not be a crime is an
entirely separate issue.

~~~
syshum
>by people who don't have any idea of what the justice system actually does

legal system, we do not have a Justice system it is a legal system

>The overwhelming majority of people that go through the justice system are
guilty.

Guilty of victim less violation of legal Statutes that are not crimes at all.
A Crime requires a complaining victim.

In order to seek justice there must be a person seeking said justice thus the
need for a victim for there to be a crime. For example Growing the wrong plant
does not produce a victim thus should not be considered a "crime"

>[1] Whether you think having drugs should or should not be a crime is an
entirely separate issue.

No, far from it. It is the issue, the reason the courts need to be
"streamlined" is because they have been over burdened by these non-crimes, as
such they needed a process to shortcut due process and extort people into
signing their legal rights away so they can persecute more people for more
non-crimes

~~~
EdHominem
> No, far from it. It is the issue, the reason the courts need to be
> "streamlined" is because they have been over burdened by these non-crimes

Very true. If we had to actually have a trial it would interfere with the
profitability of the criminalization cycle.

> shortcut due process and extort people into signing their legal rights away

Yeah, the prosecutors aren't in it to increase society's safety, or even to
enforce laws, they're in it for their conviction stats. They'll do anything to
game those numbers higher and it's easier to win convictions for strict
liability crimes (possession, etc) so they focus on that.

------
iaw
I am intimately aware of the prosecutorial aggression of the Solano County DA.

There was a young father who worked at the sugar factory that lived in a poor
neighborhood. The owner of the house next door had rented it to ex-con meth
addicts who liked harassing the mother when the father wasn't home.

Calling the police in this area didn't work because they wouldn't show up. The
young man had a felony on his record for doing donuts then running from the
police as an 18 year old which precludes him from owning a firearm legally,
but out of fear for his family he purchased one.

On a particular bad day three men were stalking the house with his wife
inside, he rushed back from work to find them harassing her on his lawn. One
looked like he kept reaching for a gun behind his back.

The young father got his firearm and told them all to leave (note the police
won't come at this point). The man with a "gun" gets more aggressive and as
things escalate, during another sudden movement, the father shoots him once in
the side.

Now that a gun has been fired the police come. The man dies on the front lawn.
The officers, aware of the degree of harassment, tell the father that he was
justified and that it will be okay. They all file reports to that effect.

The Solano County DA prosecutes the father for the manslaughter and felon in
possession of a firearm. As a leveraging tool the manslaughter charge is
dropped but the felon with a firearm puts him in the penitentiary for 7 years.
He had a 6 month old and a 4 year old when he went in.

The Solano County DA knew they could win so they did, there was no benefit to
the community. Solano is full of poor people that can be easily victimized,
it's a heartbreaking environment.

~~~
gnopgnip
Why didn't they call the county sheriff if the local police were not
responding? Why didn't the father have his second amendment rights restored
prior to purchasing a firearm?

~~~
cc439
I'm assuming they must have been in unincorporated/county jurisdiction as it
was the county DA prosecuting and not the city one. County police are also far
more likely to fail to respond in many places as county departments have vast
amounts of area to cover with ever shrinking amounts of manpower due to budget
constraints.

That said, I have no idea how CA'slaw enforcement/county
government/judicial/legal system might differ from that of the states I've
lived in.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm assuming they must have been in unincorporated/county jurisdiction as it
> was the county DA prosecuting and not the city one.

This assumption is based on false premises; to wit, that there is such a thing
as a "city DA" with a different geographical focus than the District Attorney
of the county in which the city is located, such that offenses in city limits
are prosecuted by the "city DA" and those in unincorporated areas are
prosecuted by the "county DA". In California, however, DAs offices are county
offices which cover all of the county, both incorporated and unincorporated
areas; no city has its own DAs office (well, except San Francisco, but that's
because the City and County of San Francisco is one entity.)

------
jimmywanger
I read about the case.

They dropped the DUI charges but are still going after him for reckless
driving.

[http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-
cha...](http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-charge-on-
man-who-tested-10826042.php)

~~~
basseq

      “Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the 
      defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we 
      do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable 
      doubt,” said Krishna Abrams, the district attorney.
    

I'm bothered by the "armchair conviction" here by the DA. I get this is
probably standard lawyer boilerplate, but she's insinuating his guilt in the
court of public opinion. Is there a libel/slander case here? (Probably not.)

Second, I'm confused whether he was charged with reckless driving at the time
of arrest, or if this is a later charge. Also confused about the "charges were
not brought until... nearly 10 months after incident" line in the original
article.

I'm _assuming_ the story goes like this:

Man was pulled over for driving erratically (e.g., weaving through traffic).
He is given a field sobriety test and fails. He is charged with DUI and
reckless driving. The initial blood test reveals no known (i.e., testable)
substances of which he could have been under the influence. The sample is sent
for a second, more intensive round of testing. It reveals no new information
other than caffeine. The DUI charge is not immediately dropped, and the
defendant uses the opportunity to push the "charged for DUI for caffeine"
story. The DUI charge is finally dropped. The reckless driving charge
continues, and will go to court this year.

My _opinion_ is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had
to be under the influence of something!"), so they took their sweet time
trying to find an angle.

~~~
CPLX
He wasn't pulled over by a cop, he was pulled over by an unmarked non traffic
related officer of some sort.

This one screams to me that his main offense was pissing off someone with
authority in an unmarked car who went on to do everything possible to make his
life miserable.

If I had to bet I'd suspect he got into some mild road rage incident with this
state employee, flipped her off or something, and this is the payback.

Just a theory, read the story again and read between the lines of the initial
reported incident.

~~~
huehehue
This seems most likely. I've known ABC agents to be a bit overzealous --
plainclothes agents drew pistols on (and cuffed) some girls in my hometown.
Their offense was carrying a case of sparkling water that I guess looked like
alcohol?

[http://www.nbc29.com/story/23909588/virginia-abc-agents-
viol...](http://www.nbc29.com/story/23909588/virginia-abc-agents-violated-
policy-in-clash-with-uva-students)

~~~
EdHominem
"Violated policy". Wowza. Pointing a gun at someone during false-arrest for
something that isn't even a crime, is a mere policy violation.

Then the court seals the records to hide this, and the main policy change is
that a uniformed cop must be present during this (these were undercover cops
who'd pulled the guns) instead of - you know - not arresting someone at
gunpoint for the pointless crime of buying bootleg liquor even if it was
actually liquor.

------
jMyles
> He was arrested and charged with driving under the influence in Solano
> County, but investigators found no alcohol or drugs in his system. Fairfield
> resident Joseph Schwab, 36 did test positive for one substance: caffeine.

Such a strange insistence in journalism to use obtuse, inconsistent, useless
definitions for the word "drug", often that change within the same article.

Anyway, at the end of the day, if the dude was driving recklessly, which the
LEO says he was, then charge him with that. This is a great example of why it
doesn't make sense to attach criminal liability to blood/brain chemistry.

~~~
jmcdiesel
Because unless you're being a pedant, any reasonable person with a decent
reading level would understand the context of "drugs and alcohol" to mean
impairing drugs, not caffeine and tylenol

------
throwaway729
_"...The agent said Schwab had cut her off... The charge of driving under the
influence is not based upon the presence of caffeine in his system," she
added."_

You sure as hell got that right...

~~~
stronglikedan
Sounds like a case of road rage by an "agent" who abused her position.

------
watty
This is borderline "fake news". The driver was arrested for suspicion of being
under the influence of a drug, yet the tests did not find any drugs. The
defense seems to be claiming "he was arrested for caffeine" yet it has nothing
to about caffeine.

The DUI charges were dropped subsequently because they had no proof of drugs.
The article is sensational, trying to imply that one can get arrested for
caffeine use.

~~~
CaliforniaKarl
I don't think it was fake news at the time it was published. The article was
published on Dec. 24, and charges were only dropped several days later.

Reference: [http://abc7news.com/news/solano-county-da-drops-dui-for-
caff...](http://abc7news.com/news/solano-county-da-drops-dui-for-caffeine-
charge/1677999/)

------
threepipeproblm
The news here isn't that the justice system in California has corruption
problems and an "us against them" mentality. It's that they're not even
ashamed to let the world see that.

------
Cephlin
I can't believe the caffeine charge even got that far.

~~~
jMyles
There was never a caffeine charge.

The prosecution believed (and maintains) that he was under the influence of
some other, unknown drug.

This is the reason that an impairment standard, rather than a chemical
standard, makes more sense for criminal liability.

If someone's driving ability to impaired such that they are, say 70% more
likely to cause an injurious or fatal accident, what does it matter whether
it's because they were on Drug A or Drug B or talking on their phone?

~~~
trvrsalom
That makes sense, but is there a way to quantify that? I've always had the
notion that something like a roadside sobriety test is rather subjective. I
know that if I were in the situation of being suspected of a DUI (which I hope
I never am), I would want a clear, quantifiable test, with a low margin of
error.

~~~
ssharp
You can refuse to submit to the test, get arrested, and then do breathalyzer
at the station. Police also have a portable breathalyzer you could submit to
roadside.

I have an eye condition that makes the gaze test, in my opinion, unreliable
and the two times I've been pulled over after drinking, the police noted this
prior to my doing the test. In both instances I did fine in the one-leg test
and the walk-a-line test (at least I assume I did fine). To avoid
inconvenience, I did decide to allow the portable breathalyzer one of those
times and I think the reading came up 0.0015. I knew I wasn't seriously
impaired or over the legal limit and had only had 2 or 3 beers over a 3 or 4
hour period. If you're not sure if you're over the legal limit or not, I
wouldn't submit to the roadside breathalyzer (obviously though you shouldn't
be driving if you're not sure or think you're impaired).

~~~
vesrah
Be careful. Depending on where you live, refusing the breathalyzer or roadside
test results in a mandatory 1 year license suspension regardless of what comes
up in the test at the police station. Arizona here.

~~~
to3m
Interesting! Can you at least opt to go straight for the breathalyzer?

If you've not been drinking, it seems a bit of a waste of time to have to
stand on one leg (etc.), when you could just use the breathalyzer and have the
question answered straight away.

~~~
ssharp
It's dependent on the officer. In Ohio, you can be charged with a DUI
automatically if you refuse the breathalyzer. I'm not certain if this extends
to the roadside test. My original comment was more that you might be able to
refuse the roadside test, get arrested, and then agree to take the
breathalyzer at the police station so you'd have stronger evidence.

The roadside tests are only accurate to a certain degree, whereas a properly
calibrated breathalyzer provides much stronger evidence.

------
vlokshin
In Texas, they are allowed to give you a DUI even of you pass all sobriety
tests; they leave it up to the officer to determine intoxication even if there
is none present. Another fun fact in Texas: you don't have to be driving to
get a DUI; they can nick you for intent OR they can determine that you are in
"control", which could mean sleeping in your truck bed with your keys in your
pocket.

------
0xcde4c3db
People understandably get hung up on the social/legal status of caffeine, but
I think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the notion of a DUI charge
for it. In several important ways it acts like a milder form of cocaine or
amphetamine, and with high enough doses it can cause similar behavioral
problems ("tweaking", paranoia, mania, even psychosis).

~~~
jdormit
I feel like you'd have to drink a lot of coffee...

~~~
throwaway729
In a small segment of the population, a few cups of coffee may be enough to
cause mild forms of the mentioned symptoms. But this is more of a genetic
anomaly / over-sensitivity.

In an "average" adult, it would require _a lot_ of caffeine to trigger these
symptoms -- dozens of cups over a very short period of time. Caffeine pills or
powder would be a far more likely explanation. And yeah, driving after popping
a significant number of caffeine pills is probably as dangerous as driving
after ingesting a small dose of cocaine. TBF if the caffeine concentrations
were such that this were a likely explanation, I bet we'd be hearing about it.

~~~
eutectic
When my tolerance is low it doesn't take much to make me twitchy and impair my
thinking.

~~~
throwaway729
_> twitchy and impair my thinking_

I'm not sure how dangerous those symptoms are in the context of driving.
Someone should do a study.

I was referring to these symptoms, which are unarguably dangerous in the
context of driving: _" tweaking", paranoia, mania, even psychosis_.

------
vivekd
>California vehicle code defines a “drug” as any substance besides alcohol
that could affect a person in a manner that would “impair, to an appreciable
degree” his ability to drive normally.

There's your problem. When you have vaguely defined laws, you have a system
that can criminalize even the most ordinary and innocent behaviors.

~~~
mnm1
Totally agree. Sadly, however, it's not a bug, it's a feature of the legal
system in the US. When the target is everyone and their everyday activities,
such vague laws serve that purpose extremely well.

------
tilt_error
There is a high probability of finding H2O in his blood as well, if they found
C8H10N4O2.

~~~
rhinoceraptor
100% of criminals were caught under the influence of the dangerous chemical
dihydrogen monoxide.

------
Teckla
[http://www.snopes.com/man-charged-driving-influence-
caffeine...](http://www.snopes.com/man-charged-driving-influence-caffeine/)

