7 ms·

I read about the case. They dropped the DUI charges but are still going after him for reckless driving. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-D

I read about the case. They dropped the DUI charges but are still going after him for reckless driving. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-charge-on-man-who-tested-10826042.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Prosecutor-drops-DUI-cha...

dovdovdov 10y ago
there's always a story, behind the story...
- ChrisBland 10y ago
  DA can't look bad, heaven forbid they admit they made a mistake and overreached. That would be unheard of, better to try them for some other smaller crime so they can continue to insist they are keeping bad people off the street and their conviction % doesn't take a hit.
basseq 10y ago
“Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Krishna Abrams, the district attorney. I'm bothered by the "armchair conviction" here by the DA. I get this is probably standard lawyer boilerplate, but she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. Is there a libel/slander case here? (Probably not.) Second, I'm confused whether he was charged with reckless driving at the time of arrest, or if this is a later charge. Also confused about the "charges were not brought until... nearly 10 months after incident" line in the original article. I'm assuming the story goes like this: Man was pulled over for driving erratically (e.g., weaving through traffic). He is given a field sobriety test and fails. He is charged with DUI and reckless driving. The initial blood test reveals no known (i.e., testable) substances of which he could have been under the influence. The sample is sent for a second, more intensive round of testing. It reveals no new information other than caffeine. The DUI charge is not immediately dropped, and the defendant uses the opportunity to push the "charged for DUI for caffeine" story. The DUI charge is finally dropped. The reckless driving charge continues, and will go to court this year. My opinion is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had to be under the influence of something!"), so they took their sweet time trying to find an angle.
- CPLX 10y ago
  He wasn't pulled over by a cop, he was pulled over by an unmarked non traffic related officer of some sort. This one screams to me that his main offense was pissing off someone with authority in an unmarked car who went on to do everything possible to make his life miserable. If I had to bet I'd suspect he got into some mild road rage incident with this state employee, flipped her off or something, and this is the payback. Just a theory, read the story again and read between the lines of the initial reported incident.
  - tyingq 10y ago
    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.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    A minor nit but ABC claim to have some involvement with vehicles. ABC are hiring. http://www.abc.ca.gov/ 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--->
vivekd 10y ago
Could be a leverage thing, prosecutors do that a lot, they hold up a really high but impossible to prove charge to try and get you to plead guilty to a lower and difficult to prove charge. The DUI charge might have just been a strategic play to get him to plead to careless driving. Not happy to see people's lives used as strategic plays like this, but unfortunately the egos of lawyers can play a huge role in the court system.

dovdovdov 10y ago

there's always a story, behind the story...

ChrisBland 10y ago
DA can't look bad, heaven forbid they admit they made a mistake and overreached. That would be unheard of, better to try them for some other smaller crime so they can continue to insist they are keeping bad people off the street and their conviction % doesn't take a hit.

basseq 10y ago

“Without a confirmatory test of the specific drug in the defendant’s system that impaired his ability to drive, we do not believe we can prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt,” said Krishna Abrams, the district attorney. I'm bothered by the "armchair conviction" here by the DA. I get this is probably standard lawyer boilerplate, but she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. Is there a libel/slander case here? (Probably not.) Second, I'm confused whether he was charged with reckless driving at the time of arrest, or if this is a later charge. Also confused about the "charges were not brought until... nearly 10 months after incident" line in the original article. I'm assuming the story goes like this: Man was pulled over for driving erratically (e.g., weaving through traffic). He is given a field sobriety test and fails. He is charged with DUI and reckless driving. The initial blood test reveals no known (i.e., testable) substances of which he could have been under the influence. The sample is sent for a second, more intensive round of testing. It reveals no new information other than caffeine. The DUI charge is not immediately dropped, and the defendant uses the opportunity to push the "charged for DUI for caffeine" story. The DUI charge is finally dropped. The reckless driving charge continues, and will go to court this year. My opinion is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had to be under the influence of something!"), so they took their sweet time trying to find an angle.

CPLX 10y ago
He wasn't pulled over by a cop, he was pulled over by an unmarked non traffic related officer of some sort. This one screams to me that his main offense was pissing off someone with authority in an unmarked car who went on to do everything possible to make his life miserable. If I had to bet I'd suspect he got into some mild road rage incident with this state employee, flipped her off or something, and this is the payback. Just a theory, read the story again and read between the lines of the initial reported incident.
- tyingq 10y ago
  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.
- DanBC 10y ago
  A minor nit but ABC claim to have some involvement with vehicles. ABC are hiring. http://www.abc.ca.gov/ 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--->

vivekd 10y ago

Could be a leverage thing, prosecutors do that a lot, they hold up a really high but impossible to prove charge to try and get you to plead guilty to a lower and difficult to prove charge. The DUI charge might have just been a strategic play to get him to plead to careless driving. Not happy to see people's lives used as strategic plays like this, but unfortunately the egos of lawyers can play a huge role in the court system.