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 reall

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."