Drug Recognition Expert

Last updated

A Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is a law enforcement officer trained in a scientifically validated method to identify people whose driving is impaired by drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. All DREs follow the same 12 step procedure called a Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE), to purportedly determine which category of drugs is causing the driver to be impaired. [1]

Contents

If a DRE determines that a driver was too impaired to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, they will look for indications of the drugs suspected, by the common perceivable effects the drugs have on the human body. [2] There are seven categories of classifications a DRE is looking for, including; central nervous system depressants, CNS stimulants, dissociative anesthetics, cannabis, hallucinogens, inhalants, and narcotic analgesics. [2]

DREs often testify in court, where the term "expert" has important legal implications. The Traffic Resource for Judges [3] describes different approaches taken by state courts in how DRE evidence is admitted.

Different jurisdictions take a variety of approaches to DRE testimony. Some jurisdictions hold DRE protocol and evidence to be scientific evidence; some do not. Some jurisdictions permit DRE testimony to be introduced as expert testimony (usually under Rule of Evidence 702 or the equivalent in that state), while some jurisdiction require DRE testimony to be introduced as non-expert opinion testimony. Some jurisdictions analyze DRE testimony through the lens of Daubert, while other jurisdictions use the Frye analysis.

The acronym 'DRE' has been used to refer not just to the DRE officers, but also to the examination they perform, the "Drug Recognition Examination", or "Drug Recognition Evaluation." The confluence of acronyms leads to confusion, and the IACP now calls the evaluation done by DRE officers the "Drug Influence Evaluation", DIE.

DREs were developed by police officers from the Los Angeles Police Department in the early 1970s. The officers' drug recognition methods were officially recognized by the LAPD management in 1979, and adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the early 1980s.

Certification is issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). [4] To remain certified and in good standing, DREs must track their evaluations and enter the results into an online database.

DRE training

DRE training and certification standards are defined by the International Association of Chiefs of Police [5] Training is available only to "a person ... in the employ and under the direct control of [2] a public criminal justice agency involved in the enforcement of criminal or traffic safety laws [1] or an institution involved in providing training services to officers of law enforcement agencies.". [6] IACP standards require DREs training to be done using an official Student Manual. This manual. [7] is widely cited in court as defining standards for the performance of a Drug Influence Evaluation.

12-Step DRE process

A DIE involves the following 12 steps [8]

  1. Breath Alcohol Test: The arresting officer reviews the subject's breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) test results and determines if the subject's apparent impairment is consistent with the subject's BrAC. If so, the officer will not normally call a DRE. If the impairment is not explained by the BrAC, the officer requests a DRE evaluation.
  2. Interview of the arresting officer
  3. Preliminary examination and first pulse
  4. Eye examinations
  5. Divided Attention Psychophysical Tests
  6. Vital signs and second pulse
  7. Dark room examinations
  8. Examination for muscle tone
  9. Check for injection sites and third pulse
  10. Subject's Statements and Other Observations
  11. Analysis and Opinions of the Evaluator
  12. Toxicological examination: After completing the evaluation, the DRE normally requests a urine, blood and/or saliva sample from the subject for a toxicology lab analysis.

Critique & Controversy

Scientific validation

Claims regarding the effectiveness of DREs have not been supported by research. [9] These claims are critical to the admission of DRE expert testimony in criminal trials.

The DRE Student Manual identifies three scientific studies as being those that validate DRE testing. [10] These studies are: Bigelow 1985 (aka the Johns Hopkins study); [11] Compton 1986 (aka the LAPD-173 study); [12] and Adler 1994 (aka the Arizona DRE Validation Study). [13] However, all three of these studies have been shown to have major methodological flaws. [9]

Admissibility

In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada held that "a DRE is a 'drug recognition expert', certified as such for the purposes of the 12 step evaluation. By reason of his training and experience, a DRE undoubtedly possesses expertise on determining drug impairment that is outside the experience and knowledge of the trier of fact. He is thus an expert for the purpose of applying the 12 step evaluation and determining whether that evaluation indicates drug impairment. His expertise has been conclusively and irrebuttably established by Parliament. Knowledge of the underlying science is not a precondition to the admissibility of a DRE’s opinion." [14]

This mirrors US case law where testimony of police officers regarding alcohol impairment is admitted in court without the need for the officer to be an expert in, or to testify to, the underlying sciences of the sobriety tests they are trained to administer.

Police Handing Out Drugs

On May 2, 2012, activists with Occupy Minneapolis released a documentary video called MK Occupy Minnesota. [15] The video documents testimony from participants that police officers in Minneapolis gave them cannabis as part of a Drug Recognition Expert program. [16] [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

An expert witness, particularly in common law countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States, is a person whose opinion by virtue of education, training, certification, skills or experience, is accepted by the judge as an expert. The judge may consider the witness's specialized opinion about evidence or about facts before the court within the expert's area of expertise, to be referred to as an "expert opinion". Expert witnesses may also deliver "expert evidence" within the area of their expertise. Their testimony may be rebutted by testimony from other experts or by other evidence or facts.

In law, a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what they know or claim to know.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Detective</span> Investigator in law enforcement

A detective is an investigator, usually a member of a law enforcement agency. They often collect information to solve crimes by talking to witnesses and informants, collecting physical evidence, or searching records in databases. This leads them to arrest criminals and enable them to be convicted in court. A detective may work for the police or privately.

Drunk driving is the act of operating a motor vehicle with the operator's ability to do so impaired as a result of alcohol consumption, or with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. For drivers 21 years or older, driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher is illegal. For drivers under 21 years old, the legal limit is lower, with state limits ranging from 0.00 to 0.02. Lower BAC limits apply when operating boats, airplanes, or commercial vehicles. Among other names, the criminal offense of drunk driving may be called driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated or impaired (DWI), operating [a] vehicle under the influence of alcohol (OVI), or operating while impaired (OWI).

The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program compiles official data on crime in the United States, published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). UCR is "a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of nearly 18,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily reporting data on crimes brought to their attention".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Driving under the influence</span> Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an impairing substance

Driving under the influence (DUI) is the offense of driving, operating, or being in control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drugs, to a level that renders the driver incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely. Multiple other terms are used for the offense in various jurisdictions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Traffic stop</span> Detention of a driver by police

A traffic stop, colloquially referred to as being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle and its occupants by police to investigate a possible crime or minor violation of law.

In machine learning, a common task is the study and construction of algorithms that can learn from and make predictions on data. Such algorithms function by making data-driven predictions or decisions, through building a mathematical model from input data. These input data used to build the model are usually divided into multiple data sets. In particular, three data sets are commonly used in different stages of the creation of the model: training, validation, and test sets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Breathalyzer</span> Device to estimate blood alcohol concentration

A breathalyzer or breathalyser is a device for measuring breath alcohol content (BrAC). The name is a genericized trademark of the Breathalyzer brand name of instruments developed by inventor Robert Frank Borkenstein in the 1950s.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk, they may then conduct a full search. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

DWI courts are a form of court that exists in some United States legal jurisdictions, that use substance-abuse interventions and treatment with defendants who plead guilty of driving while intoxicated or impaired. DUI courts may focus on repeat offenders and drivers with very high levels of blood alcohol at the time of the offense. As of December 2011, there were approximately 192 designated DUI courts in the United States, and approximately 406 drug courts that also accept DUI offenders.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Random checkpoint</span> Temporary military or police roadblock

A random checkpoint is a military and police tactic. In a military context, checkpoints involve the setup of a hasty roadblock by mobile truck- or armored vehicle-mounted infantry to disrupt unauthorized or unwanted movement or military activity and to check for valid identification and search for contraband, fugitives, or weapons that are not permitted in civilian hands. Random checkpoints are set up to achieve surprise, as opposed to known permanently located checkpoints, which suspects could circumvent. They are often established in locations where they cannot be observed by approaching traffic until it is too late to withdraw and escape without being observed.

Impaired driving is the term used in Canada to describe the criminal offence of operating, having care or the control of a motor vehicle while the person's ability to operate the motor vehicle is impaired by alcohol or a drug. Impaired driving is punishable under multiple offences in the Criminal Code, with greater penalties depending on the harm caused by the impaired driving. It can also result in various types of driver's licence suspensions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drunk driving</span> Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol

Drunk driving is the act of driving under the influence of alcohol. A small increase in the blood alcohol content increases the relative risk of a motor vehicle crash.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lidar traffic enforcement</span>

Lidar has a wide range of applications; one use is in traffic enforcement and in particular speed limit enforcement, has been gradually replacing radar since 2000. Current devices are designed to automate the entire process of speed detection, vehicle identification, driver identification and evidentiary documentation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alcohol-related traffic crashes in the United States</span>

Alcohol-related traffic crashes are defined by the United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as alcohol-related if either a driver or a non-motorist had a measurable or estimated BAC of 0.01 g/dl or above.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Drug-impaired driving</span> Driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an impairing substance

Drug-impaired driving, in the context of its legal definition, is the act of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of an impairing substance. DUID, or Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, is prohibited in many countries. Several American states and European countries now have "per se" DUID laws that presume a driver is impaired if they are found to have any detectable quantity of controlled substances in their body while operating an automobile and that the driver has no doctor's prescription for the substance. This is similar to the "per se" DUI/DWI laws that presume a driver is impaired when their blood alcohol content is above a certain level. There is some controversy with "per se" DUID laws in that a driver with any detectable quantity of controlled substances may not in fact be impaired and the detectable quantity in blood or sweat may be only the remnants of drug use in days or weeks past. It is against road traffic safety. Research on factors associated with engaging in DUID is receiving increasing attention to develop more effective countermeasures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Field sobriety testing</span> Battery of tests used by police officers

Field sobriety tests (FSTs), also referred to as standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs), are a battery of tests used by police officers to determine if a person suspected of impaired driving is intoxicated with alcohol or other drugs. FSTs are primarily used in the United States, to meet "probable cause for arrest" requirements, necessary to sustain an alcohol-impaired driving conviction based on a chemical blood alcohol test.

<i>An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances)</i>

An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, also known as Bill C-46, is an act of the Parliament of Canada that was introduced in the House of Commons by Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould in 2017, alongside the Cannabis Act. The act increases police powers related to impaired driving—including authorizing mandatory alcohol screening, without suspicion that the person is impaired—and it increases the maximum punishments for driving related offences in the Criminal Code.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis and impaired driving</span> Overview of the relationship between the use of Cannabis and impaired driving ability

Two main questions arise in the law surrounding driving after having ingested cannabis: (1) whether cannabis actually impairs driving ability, and (2) whether the common practice of testing for THC is a reliable means to measure impairment. On the first question, studies are mixed. Several recent, extensive studies–including one conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and one conducted by the American Automobile Association (AAA)–show that drivers with detectable THC in their blood are no more likely to cause car crashes than drivers with no amount of THC in their blood. Others show that cannabis can impair certain abilities important to safe driving –but no studies have been able to show that this increases the actual risk of crashing, or that drivers with THC in their blood cause a disproportionate number of crashes. On the second question, the studies that have been conducted so far have consistently found that THC blood levels and degree of impairment are not closely related. No known relationship between blood levels of THC and increased relative crash risk, or THC blood levels and level of driving impairment, has been shown by single-crash or classic-control studies. Thus, even though it is possible that cannabis impairs driving ability to some extent, there are currently no reliable means to test or measure whether a driver was actually impaired.

References

  1. 1 2 Seiders, Gregory T. "Call in the Experts: The Drug Recognition Expert Protocol and Its Role In Effectively Prosecuting Drugged Drivers." Widener Law Journal 26.2 (2017): 229–275.
  2. 1 2 3 Page, Thomas. "Drug Recognition Experts Combating Drugged Driving". 4 April 2017. Web. 16 July 2017.
  3. ↑ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2019-12-15. Retrieved 2019-12-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  4. ↑ "Shaping the future". www.theiacp.org. Retrieved 2019-07-30.
  5. ↑ International Standards of the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-02. Retrieved 2013-11-15.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  6. ↑ International Standards of the DECP §1.1
  7. ↑ NHTSA: Drug Evaluation and classification training: the Drug Recognition Expert School. Washington, D.C.: National Traffic Highway Safety Administration;2010. DOT HS172A R01/10.
  8. ↑ "12 Step Process – IACP DECP Multisite". www.decp.org. Archived from the original on 2018-08-26. Retrieved 2016-10-14.
  9. 1 2 Kane, Greg (2013). "The methodological quality of three foundational law enforcement drug influence evaluation validation studies". Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine. 12: 16. doi: 10.1186/1477-5751-12-16 . PMC   3828623 . PMID   24188398.
  10. ↑ NHTSA: Drug Evaluation and Classification Training: the Drug Recognition Expert School. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA 2010. DOT HS172A R01/10, Session III, page 4ff
  11. ↑ Bigelow GE, et al. Identifying Types of Drug Intoxication: Laboratory Evaluation of the Subject Examination Procedure. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA 1985, DOT HS 806
  12. ↑ Compton RP. Field Evaluation of the Los Angeles Police Department Drug Detection Program. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA1986. DOT HS 807 012;
  13. ↑ Adler EV, Burns M: Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Validation Study. Phoenix: Arizona Governor's Office of Highway Safety; 1994.
  14. ↑ R. v. Bingley, [2017] 1 SCR 170, 2017 SCC 12 (CanLII), retrieved on 2018-05-28, xref. ¶ 33.
  15. ↑ HongPong (May 2, 2012). "MK Occupy Minnesota: Drugs & the DRE Program at Peavey Plaza". YouTube.
  16. ↑ Bailey, David (May 14, 2012). "Minnesota police accused of giving out pot to watch behavior". Chicago Tribune.
  17. ↑ Roper, Eric; McKinney, Matt (May 10, 2012). "Trooper put on leave as probe of drug-training tactics widens". Star Tribune.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.