Court rejects teen driver's Robitussin defense

[drdªv€]

If you drink, don't drive -- even if it's only alcohol-based cough syrup you've sipped.

That was the message Thursday from a state appeals court, which upheld the one-year license suspension of a 16-year-old Novato girl who was pulled over on a freeway and claimed she had imbibed only a capful of Robitussin.

"A minor can maim or kill if they drank cough syrup or if they drank beer, '' said the Court of Appeal panel in San Francisco, quoting the Marin County trial judge in the case.

The driver, Karli Ann Bobus, was stopped in November 2002 by a Highway Patrol officer, who said her car was weaving on the freeway. The officer said her eyes were bloodshot and her speech was slurred. Her blood-alcohol level measured 0.022 percent.

Her license was immediately suspended under a state "zero-tolerance'' law that makes it illegal for anyone under 21 to drive with a blood-alcohol content of 0.01 percent or higher, compared with 0.08 percent for an adult. Those under 21 caught driving with 0.05 percent blood alcohol or above can be cited and fined, in addition to the license suspension.

At a hearing to challenge her suspension, Bobus said she had been at a party where friends were drinking but she had taken only a capful of cough syrup. The appeals court said that she may not have been telling the truth, in light of the officer's testimony about her appearance and behavior, but all that mattered was her alcohol level, not its source.

The state Vehicle Code defines an alcoholic beverage as "any liquid ... which contains alcohol.'' That definition includes alcohol-based cough syrup, which can contain as much as 26 percent alcohol, the justices said.

The court upheld the license suspension in a ruling last month and ordered the ruling published Thursday as a precedent for other cases. Paul Burglin, Bobus' lawyer, said he would appeal to the state Supreme Court.

"I think the purpose and intent of the zero-tolerance law was reflected in the logo used to advertise it: 'If you booze, you lose,' '' he said. "This isn't a kid who was boozing. It was never intended to punish kids who took a dose of cough medicine and drove.''

Link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...BAG3UAMHUU1.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/07/BAG3UAMHUU1.DTL)

[i am the najavo]

this is by far the most fucking ridiculous thing i have heard about dxm/alcohol in a long time.

wow.

'If you booze, you lose,' '' he said. "This isn't a kid who was boozing. It was never intended to punish kids who took a dose of cough medicine and drove.''

you booze you lose. it says the kid wasnt boozing. why did he lose?

what fucking deutsche-bags and fags.

[Midknight]

haha, I agree she shouldn't of been drinking anything and driving...but damn hahaa more like

Only 15 "capfulls"

[n__u]

That was the message Thursday from a state appeals court, which upheld the one-year license suspension of a 16-year-old Novato girl who was pulled over on a freeway and claimed she had imbibed only a capful of Robitussin.

Sounds to me like she's stretching the truth just a bit there...

[Shameful]

This is ridiculous. It sounds to me like all she had was a capfull of robitussin, and calling that an alcoholic beverage because of some zero tolerance policy is complete bullshit.

[libel]

shes trying to defend herself with " i was intoxicated." throw the book at her. that amount of alcohol sounds about the amount in 4oz

[levomethorphan]

It would take about 8 ounces of beer to achieve a 0.022 BAC in an average small-build person. Since some of the alcohol was probably metabolized between the time she drank and the time she was pulled over, it is safe to say she had an amount of alcohol equivalent to at least a 12 ounce bottle of beer. To my knowledge, Robitussin has either the same or less alcohol content than beer. Therefore, she either had 12 ounces of Robitussin or she drank a real alcoholic beverage and is lying to cover her ass.

In her defense, however, it is possible that the breathalyzer gave an artifically high result. Breathalyzers are far from being accurate, even when properly used. The inaccuracy becomes worse when small BAC's are involved, as is the case here.

[Captain Poopy Pants]

Originally posted by lucidistortions@Jan 8 2005, 06:39 PM
shes trying to defend herself with " i was intoxicated." throw the book at her. that amount of alcohol sounds about the amount in 4oz
she's not "trying to defend herself with " i was intoxicated." "
the god damned pig said she was intoxicated, she said she was sober, and had ingested some cough medicine. I don't recomend driving on dex at all, but I think a cop who notes blood shot eyes would have also notices quarter dollar sized pupils too, don't you? and "throw the book at her"? I don't think the govenment should be thowing books at any 16 year old girls. "oh god, those menacing 16 year old highschool girls, running over grandma's because of their .022 BAC and robing banks to pay for beer!!!!" oh yeah, what the criminal justice system needs more of is imprisoned teenagers. why would a cop arrest a grown male violent criminal that might kick his ass in the proccess, it's so much eisier to just arrest highschoolers. fucking prohibition bullshit, fuck the god damned right wing mind set of america, somebody should throw a book at this backwards fucking honky country.

PS: ya know that 30% of the american poulation is either imprisoned or on parrol. and even more are on probation. what a clever way to steal the right to vote from liberals, just ilegalize liberal behavior and lock them all up. then once their on parrol or probation they can pay you fines, still support your tax base and can't vote your right wing honky ass outa office.

I appologize to the DV for yet another of my rants

Peace and Love

-K A O S

:nitin:

[libel]

You went completely overboard in another direction. The point is she obviously was not sober. Why drive in that state knowing zerotolerance laws are in effect?

[Captain Poopy Pants]

Originally posted by lucidistortions@Jan 9 2005, 01:27 AM
You went completely overboard in another direction. The point is she obviously was not sober. Why drive in that state knowing zerotolerance laws are in effect?
I think we're debating what sobriety is. if a person is 17yrs 11 months and 27 days old gets pulled with a .022 BAC they are drunk, but just 3 days later they would be considered sober. this is ignorant. I had a higher tolerance to alcohal when I was 16 then I do now that I can drink legaly. point is that they aren't keeping a drunk off the street, that I'm all for hell I never met my grand mother 'cause a drunk ran her over befor I was born, they are keeping a kid from drinking and that I'm not for. prohibition laws for the point of prohibition are stupid and I'm for any means of fighting them. yeah, so she lied. if you were caught with oxycodone you would lie about it too, we lie to the pigs thats the point of breaking any law. its only ilegal if you get caught and prosecuted.
I just feel like their making a marter out of a little girl. I'm a little sensitive though because my on and off exfiance of 6 years spent her entire youth on probation for staying over at a friends house one night when she was 14. her mom said "fine if you leave tonight, don't come back till monday" so she did, but then the cops show up and arest her, and bam she's fucked. I may still be a little nieve in seeing little girls as some what inocent, but hell I guess I've just been too shivalrouse.
I see some body, especially female, being picked on and feel like I should stand up for them.

[libel]

hehe i understand.. but theres a difference between standing up for the right to be fucked, and being fucked up when other peoples safety can be involved.

[Captain Poopy Pants]

Originally posted by lucidistortions@Jan 9 2005, 02:45 AM
hehe i understand.. but theres a difference between standing up for the right to be fucked, and being fucked up when other peoples safety can be involved.
yeah, I just didn't feel the .022 BAC was endangering any body.

[levomethorphan]

fuck the god damned right wing mind set of america, somebody should throw a book at this backwards fucking honky country.

PS: ya know that 30% of the american poulation is either imprisoned or on parrol. and even more are on probation. what a clever way to steal the right to vote from liberals, just ilegalize liberal behavior and lock them all up. then once their on parrol or probation they can pay you fines, still support your tax base and can't vote your right wing honky ass outa office.

All right. Calm down a sec.

30% of the american population is not imprisoned or on parole. More like 3%. I think you misplaced a decimal point.

Second, contrary to popular belief, Democrats are responsible for a lot of the tough sentences out there. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses were created by Democrats.

Third, "honky" is a racial epithet. Just because it is against white people does not mean it is not racist. Yes, white people have feelings too.

Fourth, even if the supposed stolen voting rights were restored and Democrats were to win, they wouldn't do shit to legalize drugs or lower criminal penalties. Democrats are just as anti-drug as any other politician.

Fifth, I assume by "liberal behavior", you mean drug use. However, the left-wing Democrat party is anti-drug and the Libertarian party is one of the most right-wing parties in the US, yet it is also the most pro-drug. Drug use is not "liberal behavior", it is human behavior.

[Captain Poopy Pants]

Originally posted by levomethorphan@Jan 12 2005, 06:01 PM
fuck the god damned right wing mind set of america, somebody should throw a book at this backwards fucking honky country.

PS: ya know that 30% of the american poulation is either imprisoned or on parrol. and even more are on probation. what a clever way to steal the right to vote from liberals, just ilegalize liberal behavior and lock them all up. then once their on parrol or probation they can pay you fines, still support your tax base and can't vote your right wing honky ass outa office.

All right. Calm down a sec.

30% of the american population is not imprisoned or on parole. More like 3%. I think you misplaced a decimal point.

Second, contrary to popular belief, Democrats are responsible for a lot of the tough sentences out there. The mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses were created by Democrats.

Third, "honky" is a racial epithet. Just because it is against white people does not mean it is not racist. Yes, white people have feelings too.

Fourth, even if the supposed stolen voting rights were restored and Democrats were to win, they wouldn't do shit to legalize drugs or lower criminal penalties. Democrats are just as anti-drug as any other politician.

Fifth, I assume by "liberal behavior", you mean drug use. However, the left-wing Democrat party is anti-drug and the Libertarian party is one of the most right-wing parties in the US, yet it is also the most pro-drug. Drug use is not "liberal behavior", it is human behavior.
I think your desputing the definition of "liberal". libertarians are liberal, they believe in absolute freedom and the govt only protecting us from attack by other countries. I guess if you think of it in terms of dem or rep then you might be correct in saying that democrats are tough on drugs, now. but then again when you realize that richard nixon was responsible for "the war on drugs" in the first place then you might see things my way. you should see if you can find a copy of "the war on drugs" that was on pbs earlier this year for rent at blockcbuster or on the internet or some shit. basicaly after you watch it you will see that the "war on drugs" was concocted by conservatives following the drug fall out of viet nam. there were too many drug addicted viet nam vets for the govt to provide treatment for so they thought it would be easier to simply demonize drug use as a means of leaving the people who had fought for their country out in the cold.

and when I say honky I'm not refering to all white people, only the backwards, inbread, toothless, red necks that make up the police departments and legislature of most of america. lets face it, those red states everbody keeps talking about are the ones were all the rednecks are and also the ones with the most overboard legislative systems. think of texas, and the number of people executed there every year.

I think people get confused about the political parties when they think about social politics versus fiscal politics. democrats are fiscaly liberal, and socialy liberal. republicans are socialy conservative, and still fiscally liberal when you think about the defense budget, but actually claim to be fiscally conservative. libertarians are socially very liberal, but fiscally conservative. does that pretty much cover it for every body?

oh yeah, and also, a personal thought of mine, and that is that if we substitute libertarians for all of the republicans in the govt, that there would still be a system of checks and ballances as far as fiscal policy is concerned, but that there would no longer have to be this little battle of social policy any more, because both parties would have pretty liberal social policies.

just my thoughts on the matter though.

peace and love

-K A O S

:nitin:

[levomethorphan]

K A O S, in no way am I saying the Republicans are not to blame for the drug war, just that Democrats have their fair share of culpability. It is the mandatory minimum sentences that really screwed things up and caused the prison population to explode, and Democrats were behind those laws. Of course, Reagan was the one who signed the bill into law. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally culpable, IMO.

But I do believe that libertarians are not liberal. If you ignore specific issues and simplify the matter as much as possible, libertarians are for a tiny government, while liberals want government to be all-encompassing (not necessarily in a tyrannical way). Libertarians and liberals may agree on certain social issues, but their basic philosophies are diametrically opposed.

I would go on, but I don't want to digress from the topic of the thread too much.

[Captain Poopy Pants]

Originally posted by levomethorphan@Jan 14 2005, 11:30 PM
K A O S, in no way am I saying the Republicans are not to blame for the drug war, just that Democrats have their fair share of culpability. It is the mandatory minimum sentences that really screwed things up and caused the prison population to explode, and Democrats were behind those laws. Of course, Reagan was the one who signed the bill into law. Both Republicans and Democrats are equally culpable, IMO.

But I do believe that libertarians are not liberal. If you ignore specific issues and simplify the matter as much as possible, libertarians are for a tiny government, while liberals want government to be all-encompassing (not necessarily in a tyrannical way). Libertarians and liberals may agree on certain social issues, but their basic philosophies are diametrically opposed.

I would go on, but I don't want to digress from the topic of the thread too much.
yes exactly like you just said, I'm correct.
sould I quote? ahh... what the hell:
" libertarians are for a tiny government, while liberals want government to be all-encompassing (not necessarily in a tyrannical way). Libertarians and liberals may agree on certain social issues, but their basic philosophies are diametrically opposed."
yes that is the same as:
I think your desputing the definition of "liberal". libertarians are liberal, they believe in absolute freedom and the govt only protecting us from attack by other countries.
and:
I think people get confused about the political parties when they think about social politics versus fiscal politics. democrats are fiscaly liberal, and socialy liberal. republicans are socialy conservative, and still fiscally liberal when you think about the defense budget, but actually claim to be fiscally conservative. libertarians are socially very liberal, but fiscally conservative. does that pretty much cover it for every body?

oh yeah just in case this confuses people because they don't know the word "fiscal" it means financial, or economic.

so you see, you agree with me, you just didn't get it.

oh yeah and let me say this again too...
oh yeah, and also, a personal thought of mine, and that is that if we substitute libertarians for all of the republicans in the govt, that there would still be a system of checks and ballances as far as fiscal policy is concerned, but that there would no longer have to be this little battle of social policy any more, because both parties would have pretty liberal social policies.

:thumbsup: