California man fights DUI charge for driving under influence of caffeine

Want to talk espresso but not sure which forum? If so, this is the right one.
User avatar
Balthazar_B
Posts: 1724
Joined: 18 years ago

#1: Post by Balthazar_B »

From the Truth is Stranger Than Fiction --- LOLWUT?? file. What's next, espresso on the Controlled Substances Schedule?



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... ano-county
- John

LMWDP # 577

chipman
Posts: 1169
Joined: 16 years ago

#2: Post by chipman »

One word......."California"

Advertisement
User avatar
[creative nickname]
Posts: 1832
Joined: 11 years ago

#3: Post by [creative nickname] »

From the article itself:
Sharon Henry, chief deputy district attorney for Solano County, said in a statement that her office was "conducting further investigation in this matter."

"The charge of driving under the influence is not based upon the presence of caffeine in his system," she added.
So the theory of the prosecution seems to be that the defendant was high on some substance that doesn't show up on their standard blood test, not that he was "high on caffeine."
LMWDP #435

User avatar
MB
Posts: 792
Joined: 10 years ago

#4: Post by MB »

Driver cuts off someone with connections and they are trying to make him suffer for his rudeness (any way they can think of).
LMWDP #472

Simon345
Posts: 403
Joined: 9 years ago

#5: Post by Simon345 »

Pot is legal, but lets clamp down on those darn coffee drinkers!!!

User avatar
Balthazar_B (original poster)
Posts: 1724
Joined: 18 years ago

#6: Post by Balthazar_B (original poster) »

[creative nickname] wrote: So the theory of the prosecution seems to be that the defendant was high on some substance that doesn't show up on their standard blood test, not that he was "high on caffeine."
Not that I'm a lawyer or envy them at all, but I'd love to be the guy's defense attorney when the hapless prosecutor tries to argue a fact not in evidence should convict a defendant of a felony. Besides that, said prosecutor could be brought up for an ethics violation for wrongful or possibly malicious prosecution. Why they don't prosecute this guy on a moving violation for simple reckless driving is beyond me.

That said, if Joe Schwab had enjoyed one of my Lionshare doubles that morning, they'd get an easy DUI conviction for excessive blood caffeine. :mrgreen:
- John

LMWDP # 577

User avatar
aecletec
Posts: 1997
Joined: 13 years ago

#7: Post by aecletec »

[creative nickname] wrote:So the theory of the prosecution seems to be that the defendant was high on some substance that doesn't show up on their standard blood test, not that he was "high on caffeine."
So their argument appears... without substance?

I'll show myself out!

Advertisement
User avatar
Balthazar_B (original poster)
Posts: 1724
Joined: 18 years ago

#8: Post by Balthazar_B (original poster) replying to aecletec »

I sent the story to John Oliver and Last Week Tonight. It's too bad their season's over: this would have made for a perfect 5 minute sketch on idiocy and prosecutorial overreach.
- John

LMWDP # 577

User avatar
aecletec
Posts: 1997
Joined: 13 years ago

#9: Post by aecletec »

Balthazar_B wrote:this would have made for a perfect 5 minute sketch on idiocy and prosecutorial overreach.
Indeed!