In Eastern Hampshire District Court Monday both college aged youth -- one arrested by APD and the other by UMPD -- had their cases continued until next month so they could hire their own private attorney.
Jackson Schroeder, age 21, stands before Judge Patricia Poehler
Click to enlarge/read
Mr. Schroeder submitted to the Breathalyzer so he should probably save his money and take the standard state offer of a 24D disposition.
Mr. Fidler probably has a better shot of beating the driving under the influence of drugs charge (but not all the others) simply because there are no standard Breathalyzer tests available for detecting drugs.
Zachary Fidler, age 20, arraigned by Judge Patricia Pohler
Click to enlarge/read
Ummm... What drug or drugs are they alleging that he was under the influence of?
ReplyDeleteYou can't just say "appeared to be impaired" and make that a criminal offense.
I know people whose pupils don't match for legitimate medical reasons. I've got an eye that scoots off sideways on close focus, has since I was in the 2nd grade, likely earlier.
I'm all for prosecuting OUI/Drugs, I think it is (1) a greater threat than OUI/ETOH, as well as (2) a lot of the OUI/ETOH is actually OUI/Combined Drugs & ETOH and hence ETOH is overemphasized when Drugs are killing people too.
But Larry, you have a right to "a bill of particulars" -- you have the right to know how the police allege you broke the law. That means an allegation of what drug, or at least what category of drug, they think you were under the influence of and the basis for their beliefs. The opportunity for at least a urine test, at their expense, to prove that you weren't -- just like is done with ETOH and the test which (presumably) will prove your innocence if you are.
I have a real issue with this -- it's either really sloppy writing or a really sloppy arrest and neither is good.