90.704, alcohol, Arrest, Arrested, arresting officer, BAC, blood alcohol content, Blood Draw, Blood or Urine Test, blood test, Breath Test, Breath tests, Breathalyzer, cannabis, Chemical Test, D U I, DRE, Driving under influence, Driving Under Influence Defense Attorney, Driving under the influence, Driving under the influence ( DUI ), Drug DUI, drugs, dui, DUI Arrest, DUI Attorney, DUI attorneys, DUI Blood, DUI Blood Alcohol Analyses, dui blood test, dui breath test, DUI Drugs, DUI Florida, DUI Video, DUI Videos, DUI with Serious Bodily Injury, DUI Women, florida dui

Florida Drug Recognition Experts DRE Video

DRE Florida Drug Recognition Experts
Florida Drug Recognition Experts DRE

Using Drug Recognition Experts (DRE), in Florida DUI cases and across the nation, law enforcement and prosecutors are trying to circumvent the ability of jurors and Judges to reach their own conclusions as to the impairment, if any, of criminal suspects.

We have obtained training manuals and reviewed the evidence used to support these “experts” and you may also conclude the ability of these witnesses to meet the stringent requirements for admissibility of “scientific” evidence is far from generally accepted within any communities other than law enforcement. Such witnesses should be stricken from Prosecutors’ witness lists. In five minutes you will know: What is the History and Origin of the DRE? What is done during Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) training? Who does the DRE training? What special skills are Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) taught that judges and jurors don’t already have? Does DRE “evidence” meet the standard for admissibility under Florida law and the Daubert standard?

What is the History and Origin of the Drug Recognition Expert (DRE}?

The Los Angeles Police Department developed this area of alleged expertise in the 1970’s. The federal law enforcement agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) soon jumped on the bandwagon. Strikingly, the “certification” is now issued by the cop’s own International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and not by a generally recognized educational or scientific institution.
Florida Drug Recognition DRE Experts
7 Days to a Better You (DRE)

What is done during DRE training?

A Seven (7) day school is supposed to cover a 706-page manual. The curriculum begins by citing the Frye standard for admissibility, a standard that was abandoned in Florida in 2013 (see discussion below: Does DRE “evidence” meet the standard for admissibility under Florida law and the Daubert standard ? ).
During the 7 day romp, cops are allegedly trained in the following areas: Eye examinations; Physiology; Vital signs; the Central Nervous System; Depressants; Stimulants; Physician’s Desk Reference; Dissociative Anesthetics; Narcotic Analgesics. That is only half of the allegedly scientific in-depth training.
Let’s visit the second half of this highly accelerated educational program:  Inhalants, Vital Signs, Cannabis; Signs and Symptoms; Drug combinations; Writing a resume (Curriculum Vitae); and wrap it up with a list of questions defense attorneys will ask when the newly minted expert tries to spew this garbage in court.
Seven days to a better you – In short, street cops become quasi-medical professionals in only one week.

Who does the Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) training?

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

What special skills are Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) taught that judges and jurors don’t already have?

None. Generally, witnesses are not allowed to opine on the guilt or innocence of the accused. When police try to use these “experts” they are attempting to tell the jury how to rule and why. Since the alleged expert issues a highly prejudicial opinion on an ultimate issue in the case, courts must allow only legally admissible evidence to reach jurors.

Does Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) “evidence” meet the standard for admissibility under Florida law and the Daubert standard? 

No. In July 2013,  Section 90.704, Florida Statutes, was amended to read: “Facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible may not be disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.” Since, 2013, there is little guidance from courts and judges on the validity of this testimony.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220 requires disclosure of “reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons . . . .” The rules also discuss, “expert witnesses who have not provided a written report and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify . . . .”  In 1996, the rules also contemplated, “experts who have filed a report and curriculum vitae and who will not offer opinions subject to the Frye test.” FRCP 3.220 at 151 Note ( July 1, 2014).
Florida Drug Recognition Experts DRE are only alleged experts who issue highly prejudicial opinions on ultimate issues in the case, courts must allow only legally admissible evidence to reach jurors under the 2013 amendments to Florida law and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), and to no longer apply the standard in Frye v. United States, 293 F.2d 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923) . See generally, http://laws.flrules.org/2013/107 .

Standardized 12-Step Drug Recognition Experts Protocol

The 12-Step Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) Protocol is standardized because it is conducted the same way, by every drug recognition expert, for every suspect whenever possible. In the above video, the 12-Step Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) Protocol is not shown.
1. Breath Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Test administered to suspect
2. Interview with the Arresting Officer about BAC, the reason for stop & suspect’s behavior, appearance, and driving.
3. Preliminary Examination and First Pulse. DRE asks questions about health, recent food, alcohol, and drugs, including prescribed medications while DRE observes suspect’s attitude, coordination, speech, breath, and face. DRE examines pupils uses horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) and takes suspect’s pulse. If needed seek medical assistance immediately. Otherwise, the evaluation continues.
4. Eye Examination. behavior, appearance, and driving. DRE uses HGN, vertical gaze Nystagmus (VGN), and looks for a lack of convergence.
5. Divided Attention Psychophysical Tests. DRE administers the Modified Romberg Balance, the Walk and Turn, the One Leg Stand, and the Finger to Nose test.
6. Vital Signs and Second Pulse. DRE takes the subject’s blood pressure, temperature, and pulse.
7. Dark Room Examinations. DRE measures at pupil sizes under three different lighting conditions.
8. Examination of Muscle Tone. DRE examines the subject’s skeletal muscle tone (normal rigid, or flaccid).
9. Check for Injection Sites and Third Pulse. DRE looks for injection sites and takes suspect’s pulse.
10. Subject’s Statements and Other Observations. DRE reads Miranda, asks questions about drug use.
11. Analysis and Opinions of the Evaluator. DRE forms an opinion as the suspect is impaired. If DRE believes there is impairment, then the category of drugs will be indicated.
12. Toxicological Examination. DRE requests a urine, blood and/or saliva for toxicology lab analysis.
Sources: http://www.wsp.wa.gov/breathtest/dredocs.php 
316.1932(1)(c), Blood Draw, Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, DHSMV, Implied Consent Law, License Suspension, McNeely, Refusal to submit to blood test, Tampa DUI

DUI Forced Blood Draw Video – NSFW or America

Blood Draw, dui blood test, Tampa DUI, McNeely, 316.1932(1)(c), Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, DHSMV, Implied Consent Law, License Suspension, Refusal to submit to blood test

DUI Forced Blood Draw Video

This strong arm tactic used in some Misdemeanor DUI Investigations is most disturbing. Anyone else bothered by cops ordering and the courts authorizing an involuntary medical procedure? 

Welcome to the cop’s medical clinic where they strap down suspects and forcibly take a blood sample. “Suspected drunk drivers are getting a rude surprise when they refuse a breathalyzer test. Instead of taking no for an answer, officers now obtain a search warrant to forcibly draw blood and get evidence for the case. The key word: forcibly.” So says an Atlanta source.

Here is what the Supreme Court said about this strong arm tactic:  Download a free copy here:

DUI Forced Blood Draw Video NSFW



DUI Forced Blood Draw Raw Video



http://WAGA.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=106516;hostDomain=www.myfoxatlanta.com;playerWidth=500;playerHeight=225;isShowIcon=true;clipId=9037543;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=Station%25202;advertisingZone=;enableAds=false;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=overlayhttp://WAGA.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=540783;hostDomain=www.myfoxatlanta.com;playerWidth=500;playerHeight=225;isShowIcon=true;clipId=9035928;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;advertisingZone=;enableAds=false;landingPage=;islandingPageoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript;controlsType=overlay We have written extensively on this:

Tampa DUI Attorney Reviews Supreme Court Ruling on Blood DrawsApr 17, 2013
Tampa DUI Lawyer Reviews Supreme Court on Blood Draws and notes that today the Supreme Court holds that in DUI investigations the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency to justify warrantless 

DUI Blood Test | Attorney | Lawyer Florida | DUI Attorney Lawyer Nov 13, 2011
DUI Attorney / Lawyer notes a License Suspension was overturned – that while Refusal to submit to blood test can be used by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles to sustain a Driver’s License Suspension, One court just ruled 

DUI Tampa Florida | Blood Tests | DUI Attorney Lawyer Florida 813 Aug 20, 2010
Tampa, Florida Driving Under the Influence Defense Attorney, Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. has been researching use of Blood Tests by law enforcement in Driving Under Influence with injury to person or property cases. Technically, taking 

Florida DUI Defense Attorney Blood Draw | DUI Attorney Lawyer Sep 26, 2012
Florida DUI Expert Criminal Defense Attorney reports: The United States Supreme Court will decide if DUI cops can order a blood sample without a warrant. Now we are at risk of having DUI cops actually ordering a medical 

Keyword Index: Blood Draw, dui blood test, Tampa DUI, McNeely, 316.1932(1)(c), Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, DHSMV, Implied Consent Law, License Suspension, Refusal to submit to blood test


Source: http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/22706519/georgia-counties-seizing-dui-suspects-blood

Blood Draw, Tampa DUI

Tampa DUI Attorney Reviews Supreme Court Ruling on Blood Draws

Tampa DUI, Blood Draw, dui blood test
Tampa DUI, Blood Draw, DUI blood test

Tampa DUI Lawyer Reviews Supreme Court on Blood Draws and notes that today the Supreme Court holds that in DUI investigations the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency to justify warrantless blood test. The Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri, concluding that “the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not establish a per se exigency that suffices on its own to justify an exception to the warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in drunk-driving investigations.” 

In DUI / drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute per se exigency sufficient to justify an exception to Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing. The principle that a warrantless search of the person is reasonable only if it falls within a recognized exception applies where the search involves a compelled physical intrusion beneath the person’s skin and into his veins to obtain a blood sample to use as evidence in a criminal investigation. Natural dissipation of alcohol in the blood may support an exigency finding in a specific case, but it does not do so categorically. Whether a warrantless blood test of a drunk-driving suspect is reasonable must be determined case by case based on the totality of the circumstances. 

Download a free copy here:

Blood Draw, dui blood test, Forced Blood Draw, Refusal to submit to blood test

Florida DUI Defense Attorney Blood Draw

Forced Blood Draw, dui blood test, Blood Draw, Blood Results, dui blood test, Refusal to submit to blood test,
Forced Blood Draw

DUI Blood Draw

Florida DUI Expert Criminal Defense Attorney reports: The United States Supreme Court will decide if DUI cops can order a blood sample without a warrant. Now we are at risk  of having DUI cops actually ordering a medical procedure. We will follow this case and report back here. 
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
11-1425 MISSOURI V. McNEELY 
DECISION BELOW: 358 S.W.3d 65 
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: SC 91850 
CERT. GRANTED 9/25/2012

Florida DUI Defense Attorney Blood Draw

Blood Draw, Breath Test Technician, dui blood test, DUI Defense Attorneys, Lab Analyst

Technician Testimony No Longer Needed?

DUI Defense Attorneys, Breath Test Technician, Lab Analyst, Blood Draw, Blood Results, , dui blood test,

DUI Defense Attorneys and Lawyers may feel the sting of this reversal by the United States Supreme Court.Prosecutors will once again try to convict without being required to produce the witnesses that generate evidence in DUI cases. For example the breath test operator and the blood analyst.

Case Excerpt:

In short, the use at trial of a DNA report prepared by a modern, accredited laboratory “bears little if any resemblance to the historical practices that the Confrontation  Clause aimed to eliminate.”  “

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-8505.pdf

Supreme Court retreats on testimony from lab analysts – NY Times.com

actual physical control, §316.1932(1)(c), Blood Draw, Motion to Suppress, Serious Bodily Injury

Blood Results Thrown Out | No Actual Physical Control

Blood Draw DUI
Florida DUI Attorney / Lawyer and Board Certified Criminal Defense Expert has been researching a matter in a DUI Serious Bodily Injury and Leaving the Scene of an Accident with Serious Bodily Injury case and uncovered a recent ruling in a Driving under influence prosecution. The case dealt with Evidence in the form of a Forced blood draw. The Defendant had a head wound and was found lying on the ground beside of a crashed vehicle. The court ruled a forced blood draw was not permitted under the Florida Statute that authorized blood draws when there was reasonable cause to believe person was DUI, appeared at medical facility for treatment and the administration of a breath or urine test was impractical or impossible, or the person was incapable of refusal.
The court noted that where the only indicia that defendant was DUI, was an odor of alcohol, a Forced blood draw would not be permitted. Notably, the officer’s decision to have blood drawn was result of police department policy to treat all head wounds as serious bodily injury.
Actual Physical Control APC was not established where there was no independent evidence that the defendant was in actual physical control of vehicle at time of the accident. The defendant was found on the passenger side of a vehicle, the passenger side windshield was cracked, and the vehicle was not registered to the defendant. The court found the Motion to suppress the Blood results should be and was granted.

DUI Blood Draw? Call an Expert Toll Free at 1-877-793-9290.

Case Excerpts:
“Forced blood draws pursuant to §316.1932(1)(c), do not require an accident and are permitted only when: (a) an officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages or chemical or controlled substances; (b) the person appears for treatment at a hospital, clinic or medical facility, and (c) the administration of a breath or urine test is impractical or impossible or the person is incapable of refusal due to unconsciousness or other mental or physical condition. Kliphouse, 771 So.2d at 18, 19.”
“Other cases of note regarding issues presented in this case are Esler v. State, 915 So.2d 637, 640 (2nd DCA 2005) which held, “There can be no conviction for DUI with serious bodily injury without proof that the defendant was driving a vehicle and was impaired at the time of the crash.””
“State v. Law, 559 So2d 187, 188 (Fla. 1989), held that “Where the only proof of guilt is circumstantial, no matter how strongly the evidence may suggest guilt, a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.” See also, Lukas v. State, 627 So.2d 123 (5th DCA 1993).”
“There was no eyewitness to the accident and no other evidence which indicated Defendant as the driver of the vehicle. The car was not registered in Defendant’s name and the Officer’s investigation did not include contacting the vehicle’s listed owner.”
Source: 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 285a


DUI Blood Draw | Actual Physical Control
BAC, blood alcohol content, Blood Draw, dui, gas chromatograph, Melendez-Diaz

Supreme Court to Review DUI Blood Case

Blood Draw Gas Chromatograph
In Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 09-10876 The United States Supreme Court has agreed to review the Constitutional right to confront witnesses in Driving Under the Influence Blood Draw Cases. The Issue will be Whether it violates the Constitution’s right to confront witnesses against the accused for a trial judge to admit the testimony of a crime lab supervisor to discuss a forensic test that the supervisor did not personally conduct or observe. The issue arises in a case involving a blood test as evidence in a drunk-driving case. 

The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Recently, in the DUI context, the admission of a laboratory report showing blood alcohol content (BAC) results from a gas chromatograph machine did not violate the defendant’s confrontation rights even though the analyst who prepared the report was not present at trial. The New Mexico Court found the lab tech author of the report was a “mere scrivener” and that the defendant’s true “accuser” was the gas chromatograph machine which detected the presence of alcohol in the defendant’s blood, assessed the defendant’s BAC, and generated a computer print-out listing its results. Opinion below: State v. Bullcoming, 226 P.3d 1 (N.M. 2010).

In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. __, 129 S. Ct. 2527, 2532-33 (2009), the United States Supreme Court held that the defendant’s confrontation rights were violated by the admission of affidavit reports/certificates of state laboratory forensic analysis results that the material seized by the police was cocaine of a certain quantity, because such evidence was “testimonial.”


This Tampa Florida DUI Attorney will be watching the result of this important case.