Friday, June 09, 2006

People v. Budwiser (Cal. Ct. App. - June 7, 2006)

A funny (and short) one out of Placer County. At a little over seven (double-spaced) pages, this ain't gonna take you too long to read. So give it a shot.

The caption alone intrigued me. I mean, I know "Budweiser", but "Budwiser"? Not a name you hear every day. And what's Philip Conrad Budwiser criminal offense? Felony possession of methamphetamine. I guess when you're named after a central nervous system depressant, you pehaps need a pick me up now and then. Sorry, Phil. Not in this country. Beer = Good. Meth = Bad. Get it?

Here's the best line from Justice Sims' opinion. (Which, unlike yours truly, never comments on the defendant's name.) Background: They revoked Phil's probation because three drug tests came up dirty and, another time, they found a Whizzinator -- basically a bottle of clean urine attached to a tube -- strapped to his phallus. In his appeal, Phil contends that the evidence didn't support the trial court's conclusion that Phil wasn't amenable to treatment, a finding required under Proposition 36 in order to revoke his drug-related probation.

But Justice Sims affirms the trial court's ruling, stating: "All in all, [Budwiser] has demonstrated that he has no intention of complying with a treatment program. 'Whiz' kids don't want drug treatment."

"Whiz kids". I love judicial humor. Especially in short opinions. You da man, Rick.