What is a Drug Recognition Expert or "DRE"?

DRE's in Bucks County DUI's

A Drug Recognition Expert in a DUI case in Bucks County is normally used in cases with DUI's where State Trooper's were the arresting officers.  The PA appellate courts are still silent on a DRE's admissibility.  Why is this a big issue?  

Well, DRE's sprouted up on the West Coast.  Drug Recognition Expert's were developed by law enforcement and are now certified by the Association of Chiefs of Police.  They are based on an individual in law enforcement going through approximately 12 days of training.  The Drug Recognition Expert can then observe an individual suspected of being under the influence of drugs, have them perform 12 tests, and make a determination of what drugs they are on.  If you have a Bucks County criminal lawyer as your attorney, make sure they research the unreliability of DRE's.  

The tests are:

  • 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.
  • Interview of the Arresting Officer
  • Preliminary Examination and First Pulse
  • Eye Examination
  • Divided Attention Psychophysical Tests
  • Vital Signs and Second Pulse
  • Dark Room Examinations
  • Examination for Muscle Tone
  • Check for Injection Sites and Third Pulse
  • Subject’s Statements and Other Observations
  • Analysis and Opinions of the Evaluator

DRE's Are Problematic

This is a serious problem for evidence purposes.  First, the certification is done by law enforcement and not a scientific and/or independent body.  Second, law enforcement is advancing DRE's as scientific evidence.  

Volumes of law surround scientific evidence.  To asset that 100 hours of training would lead an officer to make a conclusion after only 12 days of classes is dangerous.  They are not doctors.  They cannot, with scientific backing, make a determination on a highly complicated issue regarding a person's body, conditions, and alleged reactions and conclude particular drugs caused such conditions.  The false-positives are tremendous.  You are trusting an officer, who works a regular full-time job, to make a serious medical conclusion when doctors and pharmacists would have tremendous difficulty drawing conclusions.  I have heard other lawyers call it "voodoo science".  I tend to agree.