Guest Post by Eric Peters
An interesting case out of California (of course) has a man being prosecuted for “driving under the influence”… of caffeine.
Joseph Schwab was pulled over by a California cop – an Alcoholic Beverage Control cop – who accused him of cutting her off and driving “erratically.” Like a dentist in search of cavities to help him cover the cost of his new boat, the ABC cop was determined to pin some kind of DUI charge on Schwab, even after he took and passed a Breathalzyer test that measured (cue Dean Wormer from Animal House voice) zero point zero alcohol in his system.
So she carted him off to the clink where his blood was drawn (no doubt against his will; the Fifth Amendment being as null as the Fourth) to test for other “drugs.”
Caffeine was (eventually, after a second lab test) discovered.
Voila – Smith was charged with driving under the influence of a “drug” (which caffeine is, of course) just as if he’d been boozing it up – or toking it up. He faces the usual huge lawyer bills, license suspension and general tarring and feathering. It is entirely possible he may be required, as part of his eventual sentence (assuming a conviction) to attend mandatory “drug abuse” counseling sessions.
Schwab’s lawyer, Stacey Barrett, says it may end up before a jury. Your tax dollars at work.
The case tells us a lot about the vengefulness of the state and its minions – as well as something about what may be in store for us with regard to driving under the “influence” of… pretty much anything.
First, there is this ABC cop.
This is speculation, but it is probable she was not happy when the Breathalyzler registered zero and no “illegal substances” were discovered in Schwab’s blood. You have probably heard the saying: When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail. And when you are a vengeful hammer…
Schwab’s real crime was Contempt of Cop. This offense is not on the books, of course, but it carries weighty consequences.
He “cut off” the ABC harpie.
She will show him who’s boss.
A mere traffic ticket won’t do the trick. But a major misdemeanor – one that carries with it the possibility of jail time as well as license suspension and years of exorbitantly expensive insurance premiums, based on a conviction for “DUI”… One can almost see this cop poring through the statute book to find something … anything.
The statute book obliged. Under CA law – and the law in many states – any “substance” that could impair a person’s driving qualifies.
Consider the possibilities.
How many people regularly take meds that could impair their driving? Note the italics. Could. Not necessarily did.
Just could.
This low legal threshold is enough to charge most of us of with “DUI” at almost any time.
How about tryptophan? You know, the stuff that’s in turkey that makes you feel glad (and tired) after eating a plateful?
Tryptophan isn’t illegal – but then, neither is caffeine. Both, however, are “substances” that could affect your driving… in theory.
And caffeine is found in more than just coffee. It is in soda and chocolate, too.
How many M&Ms do we dare eat before driving?
And there’s part of the rub: There is no precise/scientific measure of “impairment,” whether by alcohol or any other “substance.” And it is not necessary to establish that a person’s driving was impaired.
Instead, an arbitrary standard – such as “.08 BAC”- is enough to convict a person of “drunk” driving, regardless of their actual driving.
Or, no standard at all – as in the case of Schwab. There is no legal threshold defining the amount of caffeine in one’s system that constitutes “impairment.” Merely to have measurable traces of this “substance” was apparently enough to cuff and stuff Schwab. And may ultimately prove to be sufficient to convict him.
There is precedent.
A driver under the age of 21 who is found to have any traces whatsoever of alcohol in their system – even if nowhere close to the Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) threshold necessary to arrest and convict an adult – can be arrested and convicted for “drunk” driving. In theory (and probably in fact), the trace amounts of alcohol in cough syrup would be sufficient. And even if the under-21 driver hasn’t got any alcohol in them, under Zero Tolerance laws in most states, an “open” container in the car is enough to charge that person with “drunk” driving.
It all sounds crazy, but there’s a purpose behind this. It is to criminalize everyone for anything. To make it impossible for us to escape a cop – and the system – once it decides to focus attention on us. In order to keep us all in a state of perpetual fear, the necessary prerequisite to subservience. The IRS used to be the main practitioner of this art, but the various other appendages of the government have caught on. If they can’t get you for this, they’ll get you for that. The point being, they’ll get you. Remember your Beria… .
There is no other sane explanation.
The system is either going looney – or it knows exactly what it’s doing.
After I had won a hefty payday from the taxpayer for this egregious vendetta, I would use every penny destroying that pigs professional and personal life.
The amount of tyranny we live under is directly proportional to the amount of shit we tolerate. Until the cost of enforcement become greater than the parasite can bear they will continue to “harass and eat out our substance”. Blue lives matter indeed. Fuck ’em.
Plan righteous vengeance on that ABC cop; just bide your time and plan, plan, plan – no trace of you to be found. Pull an O. J. Simpson.
They don’t care, if mad at watch out. Spent 40 yrs going to CA. would never go there agfirst ain they call it the land of fruit and nuts. She will not have to worry about paying any thing out of her paycheck. I have known too many of these so called officer over 40 yrs, and the personal has change to the fact that today they think they sit on the tight side of GOD. I’m old now but have lost all respect for them. Shot first when did that become the way to act, I know that drugs are out of sight but putting people in a jail or time in court is the same a conviction of a crime. Money out of there pocket no but out of yours yes, They just laugh and go the the next one.
GIVE Kali to the Mexicans, ASAP!
Fuck you, raggy. We don’t get any special handling. I told you I was driving a low-rider one day when I happened upon a pair of cops in the left turn lane. I turned right and they followed. I pulled over immediately and the young cop to my left approaches asking if I am on probation. The cop on my right is ready with the itchy trigger finger.
I laugh, a laugh that doesn’t sound like anything is funny.
No, I say, never.
They had no reason for pulling me over but they have to justify themselves anyway.
Do you know why I pulled you over?
The muffler.
No, he says. The scent strip on the rear view. And, those lighted windshield washer nozzles are illegal too.
This is the third time I’ve been pulled over, I guess it’s time to trade in this car.
Good idea, he says.
Hopefully he can request a jury trial. I can’t imagine they’d convict. Then commence suing. I’d also file as many racial discrimination claims and reports as can be dreamed up, since that’s the only crime that counts in lib land. He looks moderately swarthy – I’m sure he’s a member of some protected class. If nothing else, he could turn gay and sue for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
What kind of shit is that, “He looks moderately swarthy – I’m sure he’s a member of some [criminal] protected class…”
Is that what you do, turn gay at the drop of a hat? You sound white, I’m sure your queer.
He needs to demand a jury trial (DUI is serious enough to get one) and use discovery to the maximum extent possible to gain every detail of why he is being prosecuted so he can pursue malicious prosecution charges against the prosecutor after he is acquitted.
But I imagine the prosecution is using the typical strategy of running him bankrupt with legal costs so he can’t afford to defend himself and has to plea bargain to a lesser charge. This is almost always a winning strategy against all but impoverished defendants who have nothing to lose and public defenders that cost them nothing (there are other strategies that are used against them).
Another reason why laws should purged every 10 or 20 years. This way they have to re-enact them and update them for the current reality.
Two words on this one: Jury nullification, not to mention the DA should have an opponent at the next election that makes it a point to highlight the amount of tax payer dollars were wasted with this nonsense. God help the DA if I were the judge with THIS case in front of me. I would have some choice words indeed.
Since this is a thread about a bogus charge, I’ll drop this recently found gem here: with <5,000 views, it'll get pulled for copyright soon.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BnvSBB_aoRs
The only option we have anymore is unfortunately do not draw the attention of the system.
Why don’t we have the ABC “cop”‘s name?