Submitted by sintactacle t3_ywzk1s in Pennsylvania
Comments
Super_C_Complex t1_iwm88oe wrote
Yeah no. He did State time on his last DUI. 1 year minimum.
But on this one. It appears it was a marijuana DUI. Which means he could be in full compliance with the medical marijuana act, and then drive to Wawa and end up in jail. It's horseshit.
But sure. He's only getting a license suspension. /S
AlVic40117560_ t1_iwmbns5 wrote
How does the medical marijuana act work? Are you allowed to drive with THC in your system?
ult420 t1_iwmcszj wrote
No, but it stays in the system for 30 days. Every time a patient drives it’s a gamble for a dui. People have been trying to change this for a while
AlVic40117560_ t1_iwmdrt6 wrote
Got it. Is there another effective way to detect if somebody is currently high vs just that they have smoked weed within the past 30 days? If you smoked weed 2 weeks ago, you’re obviously fine to drive today so that way of doing it seems pretty off base.
Petkorazzi t1_iwmgl5j wrote
Well, it's tricky. Normally a field sobriety test would be a good general indicator but THC doesn't cause horizontal gaze nystagmus so it's more subjective. Plus cops lie, so...yeah.
To my knowledge there's no "weed breathalyzer" and even if there were THC concentrations aren't necessarily indicative of level of impairment.
Haven't had the chance to look at the legal codes for states that have legal cannabis usage but I'd be curious to see what they've got on the books for this.
SlutMachine t1_iwn38hm wrote
They are about to pilot the breathalyzer in Warren county.
Super_C_Complex t1_iwmi7hw wrote
Can't drive with any amount if THC or metabolite in your system
It's dumb
signedpants t1_iwmctm2 wrote
No, weed reduces your reaction time and you can't drive with it in your system.
acm8221 t1_iwmqyaj wrote
Weed reduces your reaction time while you're high. THC stays in your system for 30 days. You aren't impaired for 30 straight days.
ActualPopularMonster t1_iwmy8mr wrote
>You aren't impaired for 30 straight days.
You are if you get high every day.
But seriously, yeah, you're right.
signedpants t1_iwmrhc7 wrote
That's correct and I'm not quite sure where they are on creating a new test for it. I think I read Colorado and Oregon (maybe?) were trying to create a new test that accounts for that, but for now there's some unfair stuff around DUIs with weed in your system. Better safe than sorry.
zorioneku t1_iwnoe4e wrote
>The DA’s office stated that a State Trooper observed Caraballo driving a red 2002 Dodge Ram southbound on State Route 472. He was observed crossing the center line and fog line multiple times and nearly struck an oncoming vehicle,
So it wasn’t just “oh he had some THC in his system muahahaha we got him” this guy was a clear and present danger to himself and others.
thunderGunXprezz t1_iwofpys wrote
I mean he was driving under a suspension anyway so the dui at that point is kinda tertiary. I feel like driving under a suspension should be a lifetime ban anyway regardless of the circumstances. You're knowingly breaking a law and thus should be forced to give up that privilege for life.
Super_C_Complex t1_iwohau1 wrote
Here's a fun fact.
Cops lie. A lot Specially during trials
zorioneku t1_iwqg0wi wrote
A) there should be dash cam footage to support this
B) cops do lie, a lot
C) which is more likely- the cops have lied about this one guy 12 times, or he’s a habitual drunk driver who should never be allowed behind the wheel again.
Super_C_Complex t1_iwrdvob wrote
> which is more likely- the cops have lied about this one guy 12 times, or he’s a habitual drunk driver who should never be allowed behind the wheel again
That the cops saw that he was suspended for DUI and used that....
zorioneku t1_iwrft1s wrote
I am as skeptical of the police as the next guy, but really have a hard time believing there is a vast conspiracy targeting this guy.
If his license was already suspended, he shouldn’t have been driving in the first place- let alone driving impaired again.
This jerk is lucky he didn’t kill someone!
Super_C_Complex t1_iwrgk1h wrote
It's not about just this guy
Police are notoriously shit about being honest about why they pull someone over.
As a defense attorney, I routinely see people pulled over for de minimis infractions.
And I don't see the people pulled over for de minimis infractions for the wrong reason that aren't ultimately charged with anything
zorioneku t1_iwrlbpm wrote
Thank you for your work, defense attorneys are a critical part of the justice system.
In this particular scenario though, I think it’s fair to focus on this individual rather than a systemic issue.
There’s no reason he should have been driving at all. He deserves a fair trial and a vigorous defense, but if he’s convicted I fully believe he should be incarcerated.
Super_C_Complex t1_iws88lt wrote
Fun fact. If he were to be pulled over now with marijuana in his system. He would be charged with a second degree felony with a maximum of ten years, which by state is required to be imposed. He would also be looking at, I believe but I'm not 100% sure since it's a new last, that it would be a 2 year mandatory minimum which would, again by law, have to be served consecutive to any other sentence he is currently serving or that would be imposed
zorioneku t1_iws8w8d wrote
If he’s pulled over NOW ?!? For a Baker’s dozen of DUIs?
My guy should never be allowed to drive again.
SilentHunter7 t1_iwproq2 wrote
So do addicts. If you were on the jury, who would you believe? A guy who got suspended for DUI 12 times insisting he's innocent, or the officer with dash cam footage?
Atrocious_1 t1_iwq2pfc wrote
Neither until I saw that dash cam footage
worstatit t1_iwpwipu wrote
Why do they all drive Dodge Rams?
wagsman t1_iwma83n wrote
While impressive to rack up that many, this dude is a menace and its clear no amount of suspensions will stop him from driving. This dude just needs locked up
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_iwn9kri wrote
Does PA not have those things for serial drunk drivers that makes you blow into a breathelizer before the car starts?
HeyZuesHChrist t1_iwniwrn wrote
Sure. But if the vehicle isn’t in his name it doesn’t matter. The Commonwealth wouldn’t even know.
Mebiglover t1_iwnxihx wrote
In order for an offender to have their license restored (in PA), offender needs to have an interlock endorsement for the length of time that it is needed to have the interlock installed in a car, if it is ordered that you have an interlock installed.
Offender is not allowed to operate any vehicle, unless it has an interlock installed - regardless of whether the offender owns it or not.
Offender needs to still have the interlock endorsement shown on the license for the ordered amount of time. Doesn't matter if they have a car or not.
If at any time that the offender is caught driving a vehicle without either the endorsement or the interlock installed in the vehicle they are operating, it is mandatory jail time.
PAdui.org has some info
HeyZuesHChrist t1_iwpuqug wrote
Yes and people just drive without licenses.
You can also just wait to have your license restored and wait out the clock on the interlock. I know people who have done exactly that. A matter of fact I drove a friend around to get it all done. They just get the whole process started and get all of the administration stuff taken care of and the clock starts. They wait out the six months or a year or however long it is and then they get their license and don’t have an interlock.
Ancient_Boner_Forest t1_iwnpsqa wrote
Ok so you know PA does have these then?
HeyZuesHChrist t1_iwnsg70 wrote
Oh yeah. They have the breathalyzer systems. After you get I believe three DUI’s you are required to have one if you have a vehicle registered in the state. If you just don’t have a vehicle registered in your name then you can get the clock started and wait for it to run out. Then you can register a vehicle in your name without one.
People who own a vehicle just register it in someone else’s name so they don’t have to have the system installed and pay for it.
Mebiglover t1_iwnycf6 wrote
This is not entirely accurate.
There is a tiered guideline that is used to determine whether or not an interlock is required and the length if time from the previous dui is also a factor.
It doesn't matter if the offender has a car or not, if it is ordered that the offender have an interlock installed and an interlock endorsement, they are not allowed to operate the vehicle, regardless of ownership.
Of the offender gets caught driving while under suspension or without an interlock device installed on the vehicle they are operating or without the endorsement, it's mandatory jail time.
HeyZuesHChrist t1_iwpuxwm wrote
I never said they legally drive the vehicle.
serpentxbloom t1_iwnduqv wrote
We do, my friend needed one before he was allowed to drive again but after a certain amount of time I believe you’re not required to use one anymore. So he just waited it out because he couldn’t afford to buy one
point_breeze69 t1_iwngfpl wrote
I thought John Mcafee was dead.
Low-Public-9948 t1_iwm1r8w wrote
How did this man continue to have his license reinstated after having all those DUI’s?
It’s mind blowing that this stuff keeps happening, and marijuana is still illegal.
-TheFarce- t1_iwm66dp wrote
> How did this man continue to have his license reinstated after having all those DUI’s?
He didn't. According the article, his license is suspended for like 60 more years, because of DUI. But just suspending someone's license isn't enough to keep them from driving.
dmriggs t1_iwof7ym wrote
He didn’t -that’s the point. he drove anyway.Needs to be locked up
--Cr1imsoN-- t1_iwmizsq wrote
The state will take your license but they can’t take your car. The guy probably just doesn’t give a fuck about anyone else’s safety or wellbeing and just continues to drive on a suspended license.
point_breeze69 t1_iwngqes wrote
.....probably?!
Sprinkles_Hopeful t1_iwn01xa wrote
Exactly just because they take away your license doesn't mean you're not going to drive I don't know what the answer is but they need to find one
Sprinkles_Hopeful t1_iwmzxpl wrote
I think it depends on who you know and how much money you have my dearest friend who has passed away from cancer 6 months ago... had I kid you not 18 or 19 DUI ...they sent her to jail once for one weekend but if you have the money for the proper attorney you just keep on walking
Mebiglover t1_iwnyq1c wrote
There's a zero-tolerance law in bucks county. It doesn't matter if you're prescribed a medication, use something over the counter, legal or otherwise, if you get stopped for suspected DUI and the toxicology comes back with anything in your system, it's a DUI.
unenlightenedgoblin t1_iwm25co wrote
We’ll literally let a guy loose after 11 DUIs rather than fund adequate public transit
NoEducation9658 t1_iwm5rud wrote
He wouldn't take it even if offered. What are you talking about
avo_cado t1_iwmiqmx wrote
Adequate public transit is impossible in much of the country
internetcommunist t1_iwmsywc wrote
Not impossible. Politicians just aren’t willing to fund it.
Why let your population freely travel without the burden or expense of a car when you can just take payments from the auto industry to block mass transit plans!
Er3bus13 t1_iwn9ouy wrote
You do understand how big and solpread out this country is right? Seems like a myopic statement.
Crunchitize_Me_Capn t1_iwnfz8w wrote
~85% of the American population live in urban areas, and that’s expected to increase to ~90% by 2050. So I would argue the myopic view is one in which the majority live in areas that could be better served by public transit but we deny it since California is far away or something.
Most of us aren’t traveling to remote areas that would be burdened to sustain public transit regularly enough for your argument to work. Most of us travel locally to work or school on a daily basis and somewhere to gather on the weekends probably in a local population center with entertainment options. That can easily be served by well built public transit that we wouldn’t be so reliant on personal automobiles as a country.
Is that to say cars don’t have a place in society, absolutely not, cars won’t just go away nor should they. The vast majority of us probably don’t need to rely on one for daily transit though if our public transit infrastructure was better built.
[deleted] t1_iwnpd9u wrote
[removed]
internetcommunist t1_iwncgj3 wrote
Sure, but there are plenty examples of it being done.
America had an intercontinental rail system in the 19th century. We know that building track over long distances is possible. Even in geographically challenging countries such as Switzerland, robust rail systems are possible. You ever see European trains? WAY nicer than anything you’ll see here.
Yes, America is unique in size, but even large nations like China are accomplishing incredible feats of public transport engineering.
Are the situations identical? No. Will it be difficult and expensive? Definitely. But isn’t America all about being an example for the rest of the world and whatnot?
Something has got to give in the US. Car focused planning is quite literally unsustainable
unenlightenedgoblin t1_iwolm4f wrote
I mean we literally had it 100 years ago, but I’m sure that defeatist attitude has served you well over the years
bluewolf71 t1_iwmsx3o wrote
This is a 12-pack no one wants.
scotticusphd t1_iwn0utv wrote
Maybe we should impeach the Lancaster DA.
Gorpis t1_iwo0f39 wrote
Maybe we should punish people who commit crimes and stop letting them go
scotticusphd t1_iwo1xaf wrote
You lack an understanding of how the criminal justice system works and what Krasner is trying to do. That whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is an an important part of our constitution.
[deleted] t1_iwnf1jt wrote
[removed]
youcantfademe t1_iwnbx5a wrote
Rehab is for quitters.
haljordan68 t1_iwmwrgp wrote
Dad?
Grumpicake t1_iwnnc1a wrote
He’s going for the record
[deleted] t1_iwndk24 wrote
[removed]
Alternative-Flan2869 t1_iwnhlx1 wrote
Well, if he was in jail long before that it would be hard to tally that dirty dozen record.
thunderGunXprezz t1_iwofdhy wrote
What's a fog line?
worstatit t1_iwpwy6k wrote
White line on right edge of road. So named because it assists drivers in seeing where pavement ends in the fog or other inclement weather.
thunderGunXprezz t1_iwpxqhp wrote
Thanks! I never knew it as anything other than "the white line".
worstatit t1_iwq51sp wrote
I believe it was changed about the same time "guard rails" became "guide rails"...
BasvoyD t1_iwq2l4j wrote
That's how having money works, they let you keep doing bad shit
Huffy_too t1_iwrhjqu wrote
So basically, we are going to wait until he kills somebody before he gets locked away for years?
Alfa505 t1_iwmrl5v wrote
He is a non violent offender. So technically per our new Senator he should be on the streets.
Raven_Nachos t1_iwmsjob wrote
DUI is not "non-violent"
a DUI is attempted man-slaughter.
Alfa505 t1_iwppjap wrote
Here I googled it for you it is in fact not manslaughter, good try though
Raven_Nachos t1_iwpw45d wrote
Doesn't change the fact that it should be.
Willingly putting yourself in an impaired mental state and attempting to operate a motor vehicle with no regard for potential injury to other people....
Sounds like attempted manslaughter to me
elefantsblue t1_iwmw77m wrote
It is if nobody gets hurt. Lol.
sintactacle OP t1_iwm1sfd wrote
>The trooper ran the license plate which showed that Carabllo had a suspended driver’s license until Oct. 8 of 2081, which was also related to DUI. Caraballo had 11 previous charges of DUI since 1990, the district attorney’s office noted.
Clearly license suspension is the correct way to deal with these people /s