California man fights DUI charge for driving under influence of caffeine

Unfortunately it is a common tactic to do that on purpose like only allowing complaints to be filed in person.

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.

That is not true for most European countries. Nearly every case will land in court, and you have way fewer people ending up in jail. And if the chance that you'll get a long prison sentence is very low, people will accept a trial instead of getting a deal by pleading guilty.

Also, good lawyers in the US are more expensive than in most European countries (because university fees aren't as high), so you don't have to be rich to afford a lawyer.

Honestly, it's shocking how prosecutors can force people into pleading guilty, just because you might end up in prison for many years because of minor crimes. No other developed country has more prisoners/capita than the US, and it certainly doesn't make the US the safest country on the planet.

> Just being charged with a felony means you are ineligible for conceal carry in a lot of places, even if you are found innocent in court.

Citation please for the italicized part? That's not only unconstitutional on the federal level, but it's also unconstitutional in most if not all states in the US which issue licenses for concealed carry. It's true that while the felony charge is still pending, the accused temporarily waives their right to carry and may have their licensed suspended, however once the case is closed and the person is found not guilty or the charge is dropped, their license is to be immediately reinstated barring any other disqualification. Here's an example[1] from Florida law, other states have similar provisions.

[1] http://www.criminaldefenseattorneytampa.com/career-consequen...

> 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.)

Manslaughter may not have even been the harshest puninshment, since depending on the circumstances, you could argue the act was a death during the commission of a felony.

IANAL, but jail time is not only protective, but punitive and a deterrent. Illegally obtained firearms are a huge problem in the US.

You and I know only anecdotal details about this case so arguing about societal impacts and fair self-defense are pointless.

I question I ask and what so many fail to do is "If I was in this mans shoes, what would I do?”

Do you allow your wife to live in fear and pray the police arrive in time?

Or do you go ask your buddy down the street to loan you his pistol, show it to her in case she needs it, and let her know that she is protected?

I simply wasn't raised to be the first man and given the facts as stated by the previous poster don't see any other course of action (assuming he is not wealthy enough to move). How do you live with yourself if she ended up raped?

I agree...

"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"

Pulled over by an alcohol beverage control agent whom he had cut off. Oy.

A minor nit but ABC claim to have some involvement with vehicles.

ABC are hiring.

http://www.abc.ca.gov/

here's the job spec.

<---begin quote--->

THE POSITION

The Agent, Alcoholic Beverage Control, is a deep class with three alternate ranges. Responsibilities include, but are not limited to, conducting independent investigations of criminal and/or administrative violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises by licensees, their employees, and/or members of the general public; and interpreting and explaining the provisions of the laws, rules, and regulations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, Penal Code, Health and Safety Code, and Vehicle Code.

Agents at Range A are entry level and conduct independent investigations of criminal and/or administrative violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises by licensees, their employees, and/or members of the general public; locate and interview witnesses and persons suspected of violations; collect and preserve evidence to support administrative action and/or prosecution; determine type of case and develop investigation plan; prepare clear, concise, and accurate documents and reports detailing investigation activities and findings; maintain accurate master investigation case files; develop field operation plans, and safely executing them; perform undercover assignments and surveillance operations; provide technical assistance to law enforcement agencies and others; make physical arrests; maintain liaison with Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies; and testify in criminal court and/or administrative hearings.

Agents at Range B are journey level and conduct more complex and difficult investigations and demonstrate a broader knowledge and application of investigative techniques and procedures. Agents, in addition to the above, conduct undercover and high-profile criminal investigations; and write, secure, and serve arrest and search warrants.

Agents at Range C are full journey level and conduct or participate in the most difficult and sensitive investigations. In addition to all of the above, investigations include, but are not limited to, vice, gambling, prostitution

<---end quote--->

> read between the lines of the initial reported incident.

I don't understand this reading between the lines.

You're disregarding a lot of facts here. If you're in a road rage incident with somebody as a state employee, you'll be wanting to reduce paperwork instead of increase it. You don't want a paper record at all, or if you have a paper record, you'll want it for something like resisting arrest or something vague like that.

Second, an equally valid reading is that this guy was driving erratically, the officer pulled him over because she thought that he was enough of a danger to the public that he should be stopped, and he was acting as though he was too impaired to drive.

Then the DA, based on the officer's testimony, wanted to get the driver for DUI as that's a more serious crime, but settled on reckless driving based on lack of evidence.

That fits the facts far better.

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...

After hearing about many people wrongfully convicted of crimes, I think some DAs are inclined to prosecute if they believe they can win the trial (rather than if they absolutely believe the person is guilty). It doesn't necessarily matter if the case is strong or weak or if there are other plausible alternative explanations for the circumstances. DAs advance their careers by winning cases and locking people up, not by arresting people and then dropping charges. The incentives can encourage DAs to prosecute an iffy case they think they can win even if they are not totally convinced that the person is guilty.

Nor any evidence whatsoever that there was intoxication.

The DA should be saying "There's no evidence of that", not "There isn't enough to prosecute". She's lying by implying that there's a body of evidence that is just not quite sufficient to convict, as opposed to the FACT that all evidence points to not-guilty. Not insufficient, but directly contradicting the charges.

  She is doing no such thing. She's just saying that 
  without a positive drug test, she has no ground to 
  prosecute. That's an awfully big step.

It's a really nebulous statement: "Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive..." This can be interpreted two different, but equally semantically valid ways. The pessimist in me thinks this "double-speak" is intentional.

Your interpretation is: "We don't have a test that shows the presence of any drug that impairs the defendant's ability to drive."

My alternate (but semantically valid) read was: "There was a drug in the defendant's system, we just don't know which one because nothing we tried tested positive."

Combine that with the valid but underhanded: "... prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt". Again: "We don't have a case" vs. "this guy is guilty but we just can't prove it legally".

The direct, unequivocal re-write would be: "We do not have a confirmatory test of any drug in the defendant's system that would impair his ability to drive. As such, we do not believe there is a valid case on this charge."

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).

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