• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

DUI ALCOHOL vs DUI DRE (drugs)

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

califdude

Junior Member
What is the name of your state? ARIZONA

I was pulled over good friday morning around 8:30 am by an unmarked Ford Expedition. I was on the way to mc d's for egg mc muffin. The Expedition was an identical match to my fiences ex-husbands Expedition, we live 2 streets from each other. Hes a real ass (were actually more alike than he thinks) I was rockin to some David Allen Cole and the cop swoops behind me this kind of **** always happened to me by her ex, thats who i thought it was. So I made my usually obsine gestureand his vehicle closed in distance,I braked hard to miss obsticle in road (lol) the expedition did all he could not to hit me. I used to drive stock cars in the day,I watched in my mirror letting off brake so he wouldnt hit my car. Red lights came on i pulled over and tried to explain what was up as politely as possible. I've never been arrested in my 45 years, all i saw was the barrel of his gun hands up *******. The cop started with the usual talk trying to get you to lose your temper, so you want to fight her ex and you want to fight me too! Long short he cuffed me searched my vehicle when other officer in uniform arrived the tacticle officer who stopped me preceeded with dre (actually dui tests) which I didnt willingly submit to. He told me I had no choice and the same lies they are trained to say to people I later learned. My attorney filed a motion to suppress the officers dre testing the cop used standard dui tests which are not valid for drugs. the cop lied about checking my pupils because he did (that was the only dre accredited test he performed) he than addmitted me was not or will not be certified as dre qualified. The patrol officer that was second at scene was dre certified but he never participated in dre eval. The cop was not actually on duty he was on his way to substation to catch up on paper work. I was left in cuffs for almost 1 hour while the cop and secondary officer talked **** to me saying im a crack head and I was not as tough as him (little guy ) all this was not disclosed at suppression hearing im still waiting for ruling judge took it under advisement, he was needing to lister to transcripts on some of the cops inconsistencies. I have been checking case laws and have since found that if the officer is not dre cretified and didnt perform 7 tests and 12 steps to validate dre his testimony cannot be used in trial

The court held DRE evidence is scientific. In order to be admitted, the State must
establish that the DRE officer completed the prescribed training and was certified.
These subjects include the basis for requesting a urine
test, whether the subject was “under the influence” of a drug and if the subject’s
responses were consistent with the subject being impaired. The court further stated
that an officer can not testify that the subject’s observed impairment was caused by
ingestion of the drug predicted. In addition, the court held a DRE officer should be
referred to as the “drug recognition evaluation” officer or “drug recognition
evaluator.”

An officer may qualify to testify as an expert regarding drug impairment of a driver
if the officer is properly trained and certified as a DRE officer by the IACP.
The results of the DRE examination may be admitted into evidence in the subject
cases if a foundation is established that the DRE protocol was properly followed by
the certified DRE officer….

can i still use these if ruling is not to supperss officers testimony??

thanks califdudeWhat is the name of your state?
 


CdwJava

Senior Member
califdude said:
Long short he cuffed me searched my vehicle when other officer in uniform arrived the tacticle officer who stopped me preceeded with dre (actually dui tests) which I didnt willingly submit to.
A DRE may conduct tests similar to DUI tests, but there are some differences - mostly additions to the basic DUI battery. Most officers are trained in basic DUI investigation. A DRE officer is a certified Drug Recognition Expert and they have some very intense training in the recognition of drug (and alcohol) influence (I just happen to be one).

My attorney filed a motion to suppress the officers dre testing the cop used standard dui tests which are not valid for drugs.
Then your attorney does no tknow what he is talking about. The same standardized tests used for DUI tests are also used as part of the DRE regimen.

the cop lied about checking my pupils because he did (that was the only dre accredited test he performed) he than addmitted me was not or will not be certified as dre qualified.
One does no thave to be certified as a DRE to conduct the tests. And nystagmus tests are also taught to officers for DUI evaluations. Not many officers are comfortable with nystagmus tests, but they are probably THE most useful indicator of impairment. If I could only do ONE test, HGN/VGN (horizontal and vertical gaze nystagmus) would be the one.

The patrol officer that was second at scene was dre certified but he never participated in dre eval.
If he observed, he could write or testify to the evaluation and the conclusions.

I was left in cuffs for almost 1 hour while the cop and secondary officer talked **** to me saying im a crack head and I was not as tough as him (little guy ) all this was not disclosed at suppression hearing
Not relevant for that particular issue.

I have been checking case laws and have since found that if the officer is not dre cretified and didnt perform 7 tests and 12 steps to validate dre his testimony cannot be used in trial
I think you are mistaken. His training and experience can ALWAYS be admissable. Even if he does not have the DRE certificate and pin, he still has the training. Whether he completed his final evaluations or not would not matter. The court may take judicial notice of DRE certification as being valid to certify an officer an expert in drug and alcohol influence recognition, but this does not mean that an officer of similar training but no official certification cannot receive the same notice.

Officers have been using evaluations in trial for decades - even when they have not been certified. Provided that the officer can demostrate training in the tests he conducted, and can demonstrate proficiency in the evaluation of the tests to the court's satisfaction, his testimony should be admissable.

can i still use these if ruling is not to supperss officers testimony??
Your attorney will try to use whatever he can ... that particular ruling apparently involved the issue of expert testimony based solely upon the certification process. The officer CAN establish expertise through other means of training and experience.


- Carl
 

califdude

Junior Member
DUI ALCOHOL vs Dui Drugs

Oregon
Oregon v. Uriate-Guerrero et. al, Case No. Z-235697, Multnomah County Circuit
Court (October 12, 1998). (88 cases were consolidated - the opinion is cited with the
first defendant and first case number).
The court held DRE evidence is scientific. In order to be admitted, the State must
establish that the DRE officer completed the prescribed training and was certified.
Once this is established, the court, in specific detail, listed which subjects a DRE
officer can give his opinion. These subjects include the basis for requesting a urine
test, whether the subject was “under the influence” of a drug and if the subject’s
responses were consistent with the subject being impaired. The court further stated
that an officer can not testify that the subject’s observed impairment was caused by
ingestion of the drug predicted




Hawaii v. Padamada et al., District Court of the Third Circuit, North and South Hilo
Division (February 27, 2001).
The 12-step DRE protocol is not anew or novel scientific procedure…[It] has been
widely accepted as a valid means of determining drug impairment by law
enforcement officers….
No independent assessment of reliability of DRE protocol is necessary, since the
DRE protocol is sufficiently reliable for the court to take judicial notice of this
protocol.
An officer may qualify to testify as an expert regarding drug impairment of a driver
if the officer is properly trained and certified as a DRE officer by the IACP.
The results of the DRE examination may be admitted into evidence in the subject
cases if a foundation is established that the DRE protocol was properly followed by
the certified DRE officer….

Part of what the judge was taking under advisement was that :
1: would a reasonable person consider himself already under arrest after being cuffed and badgered and such for approx 1 hr, when officer said i wasnt considered threat or agressive and he only cuffed me to do a pat search?
2: officer said I was obbviously impaired by standards of law and his observations he was aware of necessary tests to determine drug use, judge asked why he didnt check my pupils or temp or pulse or blood pressure? He had no answer but he did and the were all normal and he said he didnt remember doing them and they werent in his report. If he had put them in his report it would have confirmed dre at the station as to my pupils or temp or pulse or blood pressure all were normal and showed no signs of imparement.
this was the meat of judges taking under advisement. Officers dre tests if he was qualifed and were the correct drug tests would not have warranted an arrest.
thanks califdude
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
The cases you are citing ... they sound like STATE court decisions - and neither are in AZ under AZ law. In any event what they seem to discuss is the validity of the DRE training and certification. Further, DRE officers are not trained to testify that a person IS under the influence of a particular drug or combination of drugs (as referenced in the OR case you cited), but, instead, testify that the observations are CONSISTENT with symptoms of drug XYZ.

1: would a reasonable person consider himself already under arrest after being cuffed and badgered and such for approx 1 hr, when officer said i wasnt considered threat or agressive and he only cuffed me to do a pat search?
Why is this an issue? Did you confess without being Mirandized?

Keep in mind that the FSTs are not subject to Miranda.

As a procedural thing, handcuffing is a smart thing to do prior to ANY search. I know officers who have been killed by subjects they did not perceive as a threat.

2: officer said I was obbviously impaired by standards of law and his observations he was aware of necessary tests to determine drug use, judge asked why he didnt check my pupils or temp or pulse or blood pressure? He had no answer but he did and the were all normal and he said he didnt remember doing them and they werent in his report.
I can't answer why he did not check temperature, pulse, or blood pressure. In any event, there are some drugs and combos where these might not be an issue. Further, he may not have obtained a reliable reading. If someone is not practiced at taking BP, temp, or pulse, they could mess it up. Maybe he did not record those readings because he felt they were unreliable. Personally, I would have written that if it were the case ... but that's me.

What makes you think they were "normal"? You also felt you "passed" two of the other tests.

If he had put them in his report it would have confirmed dre at the station as to my pupils or temp or pulse or blood pressure all were normal and showed no signs of imparement.
As I mentioned, these are not always valid.

What type of drugs were you on at the time?

this was the meat of judges taking under advisement. Officers dre tests if he was qualifed and were the correct drug tests would not have warranted an arrest.
If the officer was able to articulate sufficient training and competence, the evaluation could be in - at least so far as it relates to demonstrating impairment.


- carl
 

califdude

Junior Member
thanks im just trying to get better understanding of what is going on and why judge is leaning towards suppressing arrest by officer and any actions prior to my being taken to station. The next action was the 2nd plea bargan offer they already made which is alot better then initial offer.

thanks i appreciate your professional take of my situation like i said Ive never been arrested the only court experience was my divorce I represented my self and have custody of 2 girls, who are now 18 and 15 years of age. If your LAPD my uncle was major crime rampart 1983 he shaved his beard when he went on vacation, and was a drywaller. thanks again
califdude
 

CdwJava

Senior Member
I was never with LAPD, but I know a few people that were there, and a few that still are.

If you were under the influence of something, hopefully you get treatment before you lose those two kids of yours.

- Carl
 

tranquility

Senior Member
The officer's observations will be admissible.

He may not be able to testify as to his *opinion* you were under the influence. Opinion testimony requires an expert. If the law where you are requires the specific certification to be an expert and the officer does not have it, the prosecution may obtain an expert who will give the opinion testimony, based on the officer's observations
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top