tested positive for caffeine...charged with DUI

[brketo]

You still have to prove that caffeine is known to inhibit the ability to drive in order to charge DUI. Also "Lane deviation" is not a charge or even cause for PC in a lot of states (not sure about California statutes). If you fail SFST and blow a.00 the proper call is to get a DRE and have an evaluation done not just charge with a DUI because you think they have something else in their system.

I know it's not enough PC to pull someone out for fields solely on that, I would never think about pulling out for fields solely on driving (you have to consider the person's demeanor, eyes, etc)... I meant that unsafe lane deviation is enough to initiate the traffic stop as I'm assuming the officer in this case did. After that you'd have to find other clues of impairment (in this case dilated pupils, agitated, hyper, etc). And caffeine is recognized as a stimulant and regardless you can arrest as she did in the case after you do the sfsts and you would probably call for a drug recogniton expert at some point... Like many have already said though, it's a tough case to prove but a law enforcement officer would be doing nothing wrong by arresting in this case. There also probably hasn't been much case law on caffeine dui's either I'm assuming, so maybe at some point you guys will get a for sure answer on these cases

[Kalev2435]

This could easily get into a complex legal argument over rights and police procedure. All i'm really trying to say is this case had no chance in a courtroom as there is no precedent for caffeine being inhibitory to performance. The cause for the stop in general is suspect as lane deviation or unsafe lane change typically is defined as being from the driver's point of view, which almost any decent attorney can beat as long as no collision was involved.

While I like to give police the benefit of the doubt in cases like this, it seems like the agent assumed the driver was on something (maybe he was overly agitated and twitchy). When the breathalyzer came back negative the agent either did not get a DRE or ignored the DRE evaluation and drew blood hoping to find a substance. When the only positive (after the second more extensive test) was caffeine the agent chose to continue with the DUI charge rather then reduce it to reckless or even DWI knowing full well it probably would not see trial and definitely would not win. It feels vindictive of the agent although there is always the possibility he was in fact on something with an extremely short half life.

[newtothelift]

Land of the free

[eatyourspinach]

Land of the free

Yeah in some other countries you only have to bribe the officer to be let go, sure sucks to live in a country with less corruption.

[startingat56]

sure this seems ridiculous

but let's remember this part

The officer described seeing him “weaving in and out of traffic almost causing several collisions.”

I have family that drives on roads

[LoudyRowdy]

sure this seems ridiculous

but let's remember this part

The officer described seeing him “weaving in and out of traffic almost causing several collisions.”

I have family that drives on roads

understandable....probably was the beta alanine or niacin flush

[DavidZiegler]

Crazy lol I doubt anything will happen from it. Like his lawyer said.. there's nothing there and they are speculating he took something else

[TMac26]

Crazy lol I doubt anything will happen from it. Like his lawyer said.. there's nothing there and they are speculating he took something else

Speculation doesn't hold up in court.

[|ceman]

Exactly. They arrested him for being "combative" aka, he wasn't following "orders".

I got pulled over not too long ago, I was respectful, but I did decline a search of my car. I was late for work, I wasn't about to be more late. He tried to argue with me, but a State Trooper rolled up and said I was within my right to decline. And that since I was only doing 5 over, I should just get my ticket or warning and be on with life.


So "combative", etc, could be interpreted a whole different sort of ways.

Seems in many areas officers get short with you if you exercise your rights. A few years back I had a car with tint in the front windows that I knew was too dark. One evening I got pulled over and I immediately dropped all my windows, turned off my ignition and put both hands on the steering wheel and waited. I was respectful and polite, and was not speeding or anything. The officer asked politely if I would raise my front drivers window up about 1/2 way. He had his right hand behind his back and I suspected it was a tint meter (the officers where I live use this to bust you with a $100 fine at their discretion).

I politely stated that I would prefer to leave the window down and when the officer pressed again, I asked if I was required by law to do so and he said "no" and from there he was no longer polite and said if I would not raise my window, he would charge me with an obstructed view, as he claimed that he was unable to see in my car as I drove past his stopped patrol car at 40 MPH at night on a dark section of road. I got hit with the $100 fine, but with a different charge than the local 'tint law'. I researched it and could have fought it, but decided the amount was low enough and not worth the hassle.

But it was interesting to see how officers can get nasty if you're just exercising your rights politely.

[TMac26]

Seems in many areas officers get short with you if you exercise your rights. A few years back I had a car with tint in the front windows that I knew was too dark. One evening I got pulled over and I immediately dropped all my windows, turned off my ignition and put both hands on the steering wheel and waited. I was respectful and polite, and was not speeding or anything. The officer asked politely if I would raise my front drivers window up about 1/2 way. He had his right hand behind his back and I suspected it was a tint meter (the officers where I live use this to bust you with a $100 fine at their discretion).

I politely stated that I would prefer to leave the window down and when the officer pressed again, I asked if I was required by law to do so and he said "no" and from there he was no longer polite and said if I would not raise my window, he would charge me with an obstructed view, as he claimed that he was unable to see in my car as I drove past his stopped patrol car at 40 MPH at night on a dark section of road. I got hit with the $100 fine, but with a different charge than the local 'tint law'. I researched it and could have fought it, but decided the amount was low enough and not worth the hassle.

But it was interesting to see how officers can get nasty if you're just exercising your rights politely.

Some, not all, have serious control issues. I've had my run in with police who are adamant at your knowing what your rights are, and you are absolutely allowed to exercise them.