Locklear Formally Charged

Posted on November 21, 2008 by John Marshall
As a 43 year male, Heather Locklear has always been one of my favorites.  It is also relatively intriguing that she has a thing for Jersey boys.  But enough with the kidding.  She has obviously had some difficulty lately and she probably is no different than many of our clients when it comes to drugs and/or alcohol. Her September arrest for DUI is apparently based on "intoxication" from prescription medication of some kind as no alcohol or illegal narcotics were in her blood at the time of the arrest.
 
In NJ, some of the most defensible DWI cases are those involving drugs as opposed to alcohol.  The reason for this is the fact that while there are standard field sobriety tests and breath tests for alcohol, things are more specialized when it comes to drug DWI.  The police officers must have specialized training qualifying them as a Drug Recognition Expert or their testimony generally is inadmissible to establish a drug DWI in NJ.  I suspect that the same holds true in California but someone like Lawrence Taylor, a California DUI lawyer many view as the god father of DUI defense probably has a better idea of how things will go on this issue.  I wish her the best of luck although I venture that the defense of celebrities like her can get complicated given the media involvement. 
 
On another note, enough with the mug shots!!!
Tags: , ,

Under the Influence of Drugs and DWI Prosecutions

Posted on December 13, 2007 by LexBlog
In my previous post I discussed the "under the influence of alcohol" language of the New Jersey drinking and driving statute N.J.S.A. 39:4-50. There is also important case law regarding driving while intoxicated (DWI) prosecutions for driving while under the influence of drugs. The New Jersey Supreme Court considered this issue in State v. Bealor, 187 N.J. 574 (2006). "Expert testimony remains the preferred method of proof of marijuana intoxication. We arrive at that conclusion in the knowledge that it is not too difficult a burden for the State to offer an expert opinion as to marijuana intoxication. Prosecutors in municipal courts throughout the State routinely qualify local and state police officers to testify as experts on the subject of marijuana intoxication. Expert testimony only requires that a witness be qualified 'by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.'" Id. An operator of a motor vehicle is under the influence of a narcotic drug within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 39:4-50(a) if the drug produced a narcotic effect so altering his or her "normal physical coordination and mental faculties as to render such person a danger to himself, as well as to other persons on the highway." State v. Dicarlo, 67 N.J. 321 (1975). A lay witness if sufficiently experienced and trained may testify generally as to the observable reaction of drug users and of the technique of the use. State v. Jackson, 124 N.J. Super 1.
Tags: , ,