Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does the law say about driving under the influence of other substances that are legal to possess but can have psychoactive effects if ingested? Such things as lacquer thinner, Freon, and other volatile solvents. If one can be arrested and prosecuted for driving under the influence of such substances, is it possible that being under the influence of caffeine to the point where driving is impaired would fall in the same legal category?
I think wiser minds in the prosecutor's office caused the change of heart.
I wish that were true, but it is the head DA who made the decision to charge him in the first place. I think she only changed her mind due to the coverage this got on Facebook and Twitter. Watch the video in the link I posted and listen to crazy eyes Krishna Abrams try to justify charging him. This isn't the first time that district attorneys office has engaged in 'questionable' practices. They've been caught withholding evidence and they have a reputation for filing criminal charges in cases that other District Attorney's wouldn't even consider prosecuting. An adjacent county, Yolo is just about as bad.
What does the law say about driving under the influence of other substances that are legal to possess but can have psychoactive effects if ingested? Such things as lacquer thinner, Freon, and other volatile solvents. If one can be arrested and prosecuted for driving under the influence of such substances, is it possible that being under the influence of caffeine to the point where driving is impaired would fall in the same legal category?
You can be prosecuted for driving under the influence of any drug, even an over the counter drug if it is known to impair driving. The problem here is that caffeine is not known to impair driving and it would be really, really hard to convince a jury full of coffee drinkers that they'd better not drive after thy go to Starbuck's
[A drug is a substance or combination of substances, other than alcohol, that could so
affect the nervous system, brain, or muscles of a person that it would appreciably impair
his or her ability to (drive a vehicle/operate a vessel) as an ordinarily cautious person, in
full possession of his or her faculties and using reasonable care, would (drive a
vehicle/operate a vessel) under similar circumstances.] (See Veh. Code, § 312 [definition
of drug].)http://www.capcentral.org/criminal/c...t_a_glance.pdf
This is the impairment issue. The guy apparently did badly on the field test for impairment. Driving impaired is generally a violation for any reason...but it is difficult to prove. Don't know the exact CA law but it is probably of that sort.
Had a case in NV where they sent a young lady to jail long term for mowing down kids picking up garbage on a freeway. It appears what happened was she simply fell asleep at the wheel but they got her for a marijuana residual.
This is the impairment issue. The guy apparently did badly on the field test for impairment. Driving impaired is generally a violation for any reason...but it is difficult to prove. Don't know the exact CA law but it is probably of that sort.
Had a case in NV where they sent a young lady to jail long term for mowing down kids picking up garbage on a freeway. It appears what happened was she simply fell asleep at the wheel but they got her for a marijuana residual.
I lived in Nevada when they sent a woman to prison who backed out of her driveway and hit a cop on a motorcycle, she wasn't impaired or driving recklessly but since at the time Nevada had a 'per se' law regarding DUID, which means that you are guilty if you have any trace, no matter how small of an intoxicating drug- even if it is not shown to impair your driving she was found guilty. They have since changed that for Marijuana and now have established specific levels of Marijuana that allow arrest for DUID.
California law requires a Police Officer to conduct a field test for sobriety, and the substance must be one that is known to cause impaired driving. So, while you can be found guilty of DUID for taking enough of an over the counter drug cold medicine if it impairs your driving, but it would be real tough to convict you of DUID because you had caffeine in your system, especially when studies have shown that caffeine actually makes you a better driver. Driving Under the Influence of Caffeine?
This is the impairment issue. The guy apparently did badly on the field test for impairment. Driving impaired is generally a violation for any reason...but it is difficult to prove. Don't know the exact CA law but it is probably of that sort.
Had a case in NV where they sent a young lady to jail long term for mowing down kids picking up garbage on a freeway. It appears what happened was she simply fell asleep at the wheel but they got her for a marijuana residual.
I lived in Nevada when that happened, but at the time Nevada had a 'per se' law regarding DUID, which means that you are guilty if you have any trace, no matter how small of an intoxicating drug- even if it is not shown to impair your driving. They have since changed that for Marijuana and now have established specific levels of Marijuana that allow arrest for DUID.
California law requires a Police Officer to conduct a field test for sobriety, and the substance must be one that is known to cause impaired driving. So, while you can be found guilty of DUID for taking enough of an over the counter drug cold medicine if it impairs your driving, but it would be real tough to convict you of DUID because you had caffeine in your system, especially when studies have shown that caffeine actually makes you a better driver. Driving Under the Influence of Caffeine?
Your memory is incorrect. From a Sun story at the time of the trial...
"Watkins had wanted to challenge the state law, passed in October 1999, that presumes anyone with 2 nanograms of THC in their blood is impaired. In pretrial moves, the state Supreme Court rejected the challenge and Gibbons ruled that Watkins could not make that argument to the jury."
She was convicted based on that. She would still have been convicted of a serious misdemeanor if she only fell asleep but that is how they got the big penalty.
Your memory is incorrect. From a Sun story at the time of the trial...
I think we are talking about two different cases, but you are right there is a legal limit of 2 nanograms of THC in blood for DUID in Nevada, I think it was zero in 1999, and I'm pretty sure it's still no tolerance for other drugs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
