New Crime in California! - DUI Caffeine

Shcwab was driving home from work when he was pulled over by an agent from the California department of alcoholic beverage control, who was driving an unmarked vehicle. The agent said Schwab had cut her off and was driving erratically.

The 36-year-old union glazier was given a breathalyzer test which showed a 0.00% blood alcohol level, his attorney said. He was booked into county jail and had his blood drawn, but the resulting toxicology report came back negative for benzodiazepines, cocaine, opiates, THC, carisoprodol (a muscle relaxant), methamphetamine/MDMA, oxycodone, and zolpidem.

The sample was screened a second time by a laboratory in Pennsylvania, according to documents provided to the Guardian, where the sole positive result was for caffeine – a substance likely coursing through the veins of many drivers on the road at any given time.

“I’ve never seen this before,” said Barrett. “I’ve never even heard of it.”

gHost Spartan wrote:Interesting case. I think a tough one for the persecutor to prove. But those DUI statues are pretty vague and a defendant can be convicted if under the influence of any substance which caused their impairment while driving, i.e. sniffing glue or huffing, drugs, Spice, shit like that -

gHost Spartan wrote:Interesting case. I think a tough one for the persecutor to prove. But those DUI statues are pretty vague and a defendant can be convicted if under the influence of any substance which caused their impairment while driving, i.e. sniffing glue or huffing, drugs, Spice, shit like that -

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

gHost Spartan wrote:Interesting case. I think a tough one for the persecutor to prove. But those DUI statues are pretty vague and a defendant can be convicted if under the influence of any substance which caused their impairment while driving, i.e. sniffing glue or huffing, drugs, Spice, shit like that -

Could the statute be voided for vagueness then? Seems like there was no fair warning to the Defendant.

LooseGoose wrote:

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

Could the statute be voided for vagueness then? Seems like there was no fair warning to the Defendant.

Ignorance is no excuse.

Three_Putt_Par wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:

Ignorance is no excuse.

Yeah, I know the Defendant's state of mind doesn't matter for a DUI case or other strict liability crimes. However, if the law itself is overly vague and cannot be interpreted by the general public, it can be challenged (I think). Probably a hard thing to challenge though.

Turtleneck wrote:

gHost Spartan wrote:Interesting case. I think a tough one for the persecutor to prove. But those DUI statues are pretty vague and a defendant can be convicted if under the influence of any substance which caused their impairment while driving, i.e. sniffing glue or huffing, drugs, Spice, shit like that -

Goodbar was always good for some jenkem references. Too bad we got stuck with his cousin Greenway.