Recent law enforcement training focuses on efforts to try and detect drug impairments in motorists, which is no easy task. In this blog, we continue our discussion on prescription drug DUI and DUI involving drugs (DUID).
Many non-impaired drivers get caught in the web of police screening “tools” known as standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) simply because they took their prescription medication. The officers who receive specialized drug evaluation training are known as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs), which we previously touched on. All DREs follow the same 12-step procedure called a Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE) to detect DUI involving drugs and determine which category of drugs is causing the driver to be impaired.
DRE Protocol for DUI Involving Drugs
According to the IACP, the DRE protocol is a standardized and systematic method of examining a DUID suspect to determine the following: (1) whether or not the suspect is impaired; if so, (2) whether the impairment relates to drugs or a medical condition; and if drugs, (3) what category or combination of categories of drugs are the likely cause of the impairment. The process is systematic because it is based on a complete set of observable signs and symptoms known to be reliable indicators of drug impairment. The DRE evaluation is standardized because it is conducted the same way, by every DRE, for every suspect whenever possible.
There is no scientific validity for these SFSTs for drug impairment detection. As such, these tools are flawed and unreliable. First off, police officers do not have the medical training or qualifications to medically rule out or distinguish a medical condition that can mimic impairment. Most law enforcement officers have only attended a 2- to 3-day seminar, that’s it. Secondly, the design of these so-called evaluation tools have an inherent confirmation bias—that is, any clue observed by an officer is automatically perceived as a clue of impairment from medication or drugs.
What is confirmation bias?
Confirmation bias is a tendency to search for and interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypothesis while ignoring or discounting information that casts doubt on the belief. One recognized expert testified in court that “If the DRE is allowed to testify to a reasonable degree of a police officer’s certainty that based on this [DRE] matrix the person is intoxicated, the Court will be receiving inaccurate and false evidence and will be convicting wrong people.”
A Good DUI Summation
At trial for a DUID, your defense attorney must have a good summation. What is a “good summation?” From the standpoint of the defense, it is a thorough review of exculpatory facts delivered in a convincing fashion that emphasizes the existence of reasonable doubt.
The proof in a DUI trial will cover multiple and divergent areas such as operation, field sobriety tests, chemical testing as well as standard for intoxication and reasonable doubt.
Contact The Patel Law Firm
Driving under the influence of drugs is prohibited in the state of Georgia. With the recent rise in prescription drug use, law enforcement efforts have increased to detect motorists’ drug impairments. You need to hire a skilled lawyer that is proficient in DUID defenses. Sneh Patel has taken multiple courses and continuously attends seminars to stay current on changes in procedures and the law. Contact the Savannah law office to schedule a free consultation.
Recent Comments