Apparently, yes. I found that out in A Red Bull High written by a law enforcement officer. This story is a bit funny, actually.
This officer chanced upon a guy appearing out of control and creating a disturbance. So, he arrested the guy and took him in for being a public nuisance due to being drunk. The officer, however, did not notice any alcohol breath from the guy but figured that he had to be under the influence of something as he was so hyped up.
But that's not as interesting as what happened after a few months. I don't know whether I want to laugh or cry at what the guy did. The officer received a subpoena ad testificandum because the guy chose to contest the charge and acted as his own attorney. Great. As Abraham Lincoln put it, a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.
So, what happened next? He talked his way to being found guilty. How? He said that he cannot be charged for causing a nuisance while being drunk because he did not drink alcohol. He merely drank Red Bull. In fact, according to him, the officer did not even give him a breath test or a field sobriety test. Then the judge was like "Uh, okay. Nuisance under the influence of Red Bull then.". Oops. Why is that bad? It's bad because now, there is legal basis that you can be arrested for being drunk on Red Bull; what's next, coffee? The guy should just have pleaded guilty and paid the fine; or at least sought the assistance of counsel if he really wanted to fight the charge.
Comments for this post
