5 ms·

“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

by 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--->
  - CPLX 10y ago
    Yeah no not really. They don't conduct traffic stops and aren't charged with enforcing DWI laws. It's right there in your text, their job is to worry about "violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises" and that's what they are for. Presumably they are sworn law enforcement officers, and as such have the technical ability to enforce the law generally, but it's really clear that the person in question has a job enforcing liquor license law, and was outside their normal job description on this one. It's equivalent to a fish and game warden grabbing a shoplifter while at the mall. It's allowed and legal, but not normal.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > 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.
- huehehue 10y ago
  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-violated-policy-in-clash-with-uva-students http://www.nbc29.com/story/23909588/virginia-abc-agents-viol...
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    "Violated policy". Wowza. Pointing a gun at someone during false-arrest for something that isn't even a crime, is a mere policy violation. Then the court seals the records to hide this, and the main policy change is that a uniformed cop must be present during this (these were undercover cops who'd pulled the guns) instead of - you know - not arresting someone at gunpoint for the pointless crime of buying bootleg liquor even if it was actually liquor.
maxerickson 10y ago
California has specific laws about driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. So the DA isn't exactly casting about looking for a charge there. It's also their essential function to prosecute people they believe they can prove guilty. It would be bizarre for a DA to be talking about prosecuting someone they didn't believe to be guilty.
- jartelt 10y ago
  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.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Maybe. I think even most aggressive DAs are simply embedded in a culture that really does believe that they are going after guilty people. (It's important to consider this possibility because then the fix has to be to the system, not just to try to find different people)
jimmywanger 10y ago
> she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. 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. > My opinion is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had to be under the influence of something!") Agreed. Although they did take two blood tests, and sent them out for screening. The penalties for DUI are exponentially worse than the penalties for reckless driving, and it looks better for the DA and all prosecution parties involved if they can get a DUI instead of a lesser charge.
- basseq 10y ago
  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."
- EdHominem 10y ago
  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.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago

by basseq 10y ago

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--->
- CPLX 10y ago
  Yeah no not really. They don't conduct traffic stops and aren't charged with enforcing DWI laws. It's right there in your text, their job is to worry about "violations committed on or about alcoholic beverage control licensed premises" and that's what they are for. Presumably they are sworn law enforcement officers, and as such have the technical ability to enforce the law generally, but it's really clear that the person in question has a job enforcing liquor license law, and was outside their normal job description on this one. It's equivalent to a fish and game warden grabbing a shoplifter while at the mall. It's allowed and legal, but not normal.
jimmywanger 10y ago
> 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.
huehehue 10y ago
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-violated-policy-in-clash-with-uva-students http://www.nbc29.com/story/23909588/virginia-abc-agents-viol...
- EdHominem 10y ago
  "Violated policy". Wowza. Pointing a gun at someone during false-arrest for something that isn't even a crime, is a mere policy violation. Then the court seals the records to hide this, and the main policy change is that a uniformed cop must be present during this (these were undercover cops who'd pulled the guns) instead of - you know - not arresting someone at gunpoint for the pointless crime of buying bootleg liquor even if it was actually liquor.

maxerickson 10y ago

California has specific laws about driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol. So the DA isn't exactly casting about looking for a charge there. It's also their essential function to prosecute people they believe they can prove guilty. It would be bizarre for a DA to be talking about prosecuting someone they didn't believe to be guilty.

jartelt 10y ago
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.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Maybe. I think even most aggressive DAs are simply embedded in a culture that really does believe that they are going after guilty people. (It's important to consider this possibility because then the fix has to be to the system, not just to try to find different people)

jimmywanger 10y ago

> she's insinuating his guilt in the court of public opinion. 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. > My opinion is that the DA really wanted to prosecute the DUI charge ("he had to be under the influence of something!") Agreed. Although they did take two blood tests, and sent them out for screening. The penalties for DUI are exponentially worse than the penalties for reckless driving, and it looks better for the DA and all prosecution parties involved if they can get a DUI instead of a lesser charge.

basseq 10y ago
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."
EdHominem 10y ago
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.
- jimmywanger 10y ago