TRENTON, N.J. (1010 WINS) — A judge ruled Thursday testimony from specially trained police officers to identify whether someone was driving while drug-impaired is reliable enough to serve as evidence in court.
listen to 1010 wins
So-called Drug Recognition Experts follow a 12-step standardized process that includes physical examination and toxicology tests, though the tests won’t be required for testimony to be admissible in court.
Joseph Lisa, a retired judge, was appointed as special master by the Supreme Court in 2019 to determine the validity of DRE testimony.
The appointment followed a 2015 case in which Michael Olenowski, a man convicted of driving while intoxicated with testimony from a DRE, argued the experts aren’t accurate or scientific in their evaluations.
In a 384-page report from Lisa, the judge reviewed 2,551 cases in which drivers were arrested by a DRE and had a toxicology report.
Lisa found 3.2% of those cases had “false positives” in which the driver was arrested but no drugs were found in their system.
The report also found toxicology data was missing for 27% of cases, but Lisa ruled courts can rely on DRE testimony with no toxicology report because it would be cumbersome for police to obtain warrants for tests in every case.
Olenowski’s case was one such instance in which a breathalyzer found no alcohol, no blood or urine tests were conducted, but a DRE’s testimony was still enough to get a conviction.
New Jersey State Police procedure currently instructs officers to seek warrants for toxicological assessment only after a crash that causes a serious injury or death.
The Office of the Public Defender, which represented Olenowksi, plans to appeal the ruling.
As of yet, it is uncertain whether Lisa’s ruling will impact businesses ability to use DREs to determine if a worker is high on the job.
Related
Related
