DUI - Arrested For Driving Under The Influence Of .... Caffeine
Categories: News, Extra, constitutionality
38-year-old California Man - Joseph Schwab has been fighting a DUI for over a year, despite the fact that he was not under the influence of any illegal drugs at the time, he did, however, test positive for caffeine.
The Guardian reported that Schwab was pulled over last August by an officer who accused him of driving erratically.
Schwab 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 officer claims that Schwab cut her off and she gave him a breathalyzer which showed a blood alcohol content of 0.00%.
Unfortunately, the officer was still not convinced. So, she arrested him and took him to jail so his blood could be drawn for other drugs. His blood tests came back negative for all illegal drugs. But he did test positive for caffeine. For some reason, this was enough to charge Schwab with a DUI.
“I’ve never seen this before; I’ve never even heard of it.” Stacey Barrett, Schwab’s attorney said.
“I have not been provided with any evidence to support a theory of prosecution for a substance other than caffeine at this time. Nor I have received any statements, reports, etc documenting any ongoing investigation since the [toxicology report] dated 18 November 2015,” she added.
“No one believed me that I only had caffeine in my system until I showed them the lab results. I want the charges to be dismissed and my name to be cleared,” Schwab said.
The California legal code specifies that a “drug” is any substance other than alcohol that could impair a person’s driving, but there is no precedent for caffeine negatively affecting a person’s ability to drive. In fact, it is quite the opposite as caffeine is marketed in gas stations across the country as increasing alertness while on the roadways.
One California Veteran and History Professor responded to this case:
"I hold the belief that no city, no officer, no lawyer, no judge, no mayor, no county, no federal government has any right to prosecute anyone in the United States. They are all servants of the people, and in their employment, subserviant to the public. Only a citizen who is personally infringed upon may file a case to prosecute any other citizen for harming them. The rest of it is all a fiction created to generate wealth for the court system, for the prison system, for the lawmakers and lawyers, for those who are supposed to be paid already by taxpayer dollars. Any civil office or officer that accepts payment, works on the behalf of someone who accepts payment for services such as jail sentences, prison sentences, etc... is in breach of the terms of their employment of service to the public, and must be terminated and / or imprisoned for corruption."
"This overbearance of corruption in the United States, and any other country where government has over-stepped constitutional bounds must be culled at every turn, and cannot be allowed to get out of hand. This is the reason no man or woman should be in office for more than a few years. Lifelong political endeavors detract from the purpose that government is not in the industry by which to profit, but simply to serve the public. It's primary goal should be to better the lives of it's citizens, and never to do more harm than good. "
"When one honest citizen has his time wasted by detainment, jail time, or other infringement upon his personal time and space, unjustly mind you, he or she should be made whole financially for the error. This false accusation should create a wealthy citizen at the expense of the office, officer, judge, and community who accuse him. This is one way to bring runaway agendas under control.... bankrupt them and imprison the perpetrators for corruption."
"The question lies in who will initiate these charges, since it seems the Bureaucrats control the courts. This is where the public must work together to maintain control of their offices."
How do you feel about this case? And about the History Professors' opinion? Is he overzealous, or justified in his remarks?
It often seems that challenges come with overpopulation and over regulation which often seem to go hand-in-hand. 95 percent of counties in the U.S. have no building codes or restrictions, and minimal policing. The other 5% are where the majority of the population lives. People seem to locate around friends and family, who are already located in one of these 5% centers, or near a place of employment, which are also in these population centers. How might that change in the next few years? How does the idea of living off the Grid impact those decisions?