DUIStoned Driver
Friday, July 21, 2006 BY ROBERT SCHWANEBERG Star-Ledger Staff
Since 1924, New Jersey courts have followed this rule: anyone can spot a drunk, but it takes special training to recognize when someone is stoned.
Yesterday the state Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that rule, but offered this twist: Your typical police officer knows marijuana intoxication when he sees it.
"Expert testimony only requires that a witness be qualified 'by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,'" Justice Roberto Rivera-Soto wrote. He said the curriculum for police training covers illegal drugs, their street names and their "symptoms of use."
Prosecutors routinely point to that training to show that a police officer is qualified "to testify as expert witnesses on the subject of marijuana intoxication," the justice wrote.
But Rivera-Soto also said nothing in the law on driving while intoxicated requires such expert testimony. The high court reinstated a Camden County man's conviction for driving under the influence of marijuana, which an appeals court had thrown out because the state did not present an expert witness.
Two state troopers who stopped Justin Bealor's car in Sea Isle City did testify that they observed him driving erratically and that his speech was slurred and his eyes "bloodshot and glassy," the ruling said. A drug test found metabolites of marijuana in Bealor's urine. Taken together, the high court ruled, that was enough evidence to convict Bealor of driving while drugged.
Bealor's lawyer, Brian S. O'Malley of Haddon Heights, said he had expected to win. He said Bealor, now 25, was a college student at the time of his arrest in July 2002.
"The family will be disappointed," O'Malley said. "It's been a roller-coaster ride: conviction, reversal, conviction."
Deputy Attorney General Steven Yomtov, who argued the case for the state, was "pleased with the outcome."
Yomtov said the appeals court ruling had created a problem for prosecutors because it required them to prove through expert testimony that a driver had not merely smoked marijuana, but was driving under its influence. He said drug testing, unlike alcohol testing, cannot tell if someone has enough marijuana in his bloodstream to impair his driving.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, Yomtov argued the symptoms of marijuana intoxication are so well known that ordinary citizens would recognize them. In essence, he argued everyone is an expert at spotting someone who is stoned. The justices rejected that argument but agreed the appeals court had made the case unduly complicated.
"The issue is simple: Was the defendant 'under the influence' of a narcotic, hallucinogen or habit-producing drug while he operated a motor vehicle," Rivera-Soto wrote. He concluded the state proved Bealor drove under the influence of marijuana.
But he added that for future cases, the "preferred method" is for the prosecutor to establish the arresting officer's credentials as an expert in recognizing marijuana intoxication.
"We ended up getting, I think, the same result," Yomtov said.
Source: http://www.nj.com
