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 
alcohol, alcohol violations, Breath Test, Breath tests, Breathalyzer, checkpoint, Clearwater DUI Arrests, Clearwater Sobriety Checkpoint, controlled substances, Cops, Criminal Defense Attorney, Criminal Traffic Charges, D U I, Dade City DUI, Defense Attorney Tampa, Driving under influence, Driving Under Influence Defense Attorney, Driving Under Influence DUI Property Damage Injury 2nd Conviction, Driving under the influence, Driving under the influence ( DUI ), DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (OVER 0.15), Driving under the Influence Causing Injury, DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE THIRD OR SUBSEQUEN, DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE UNLAWFUL BREATH, Driving with unlawful breath alcohol level, Drug DUI, drug2go.com, drugs, dui, DUI 2ND CONVICTION, DUI Arrest, DUI Attorney, DUI Attorney Lawyer, DUI Attorney Tampa, DUI attorneys, DUI Blood, DUI Blood Alcohol Analyses, dui breath test, DUI Brooksville, dui checkpoint, DUI Checkpoint Map, DUI Checkpoints, DUI Clearwater Attorney, DUI Clearwater Lawyer, DUI Clearwater., DUI Driving Under Influence, DUI Driving Under The Influence Third Or Subsequent Offense, DUI Hernando, DUI Hernando Attorney, DUI Hernando Lawyer, DUI Hillsborough, dui hillsborough attorney, dui hillsborough lawyer, DUI Information Search Online, dui lawyer, DUI Pasco, DUI Pasco Florida, DUI Penalties, dui pinellas, DUI Pinellas Attorney, DUI Pinellas Attorney Lawyer, DUI Pinellas Lawyer, DUI Plant City, dui polk county, dui refusal, DUI Refusal to submit to breath test, DUI St Pete Attorney, DUI St Pete Lawyer, DUI St Petersburg, DUI St Petersburg Attorney, DUI St Petersburg Lawyer, DUI Tampa, DUI Tampa Attorney, DUI Tampa Defense Attorney, DUI Tampa Lawyer, DUI Temple Terrace, dui traffic stop, DUI Video, DUI Videos, DUI Women, Felony DUI, FHP, florida dui, Florida DUI Arrest, florida dui attorney, Florida DUI Breath Alcohol Concentration Calculator, florida dui lawyer, Florida DUI Ticket, Florida Highway Patrol Video, florida lawyer, Hernando DUI Lawyer, Hernando Florida DUI, hillsborough, Hillsborough Arrest, Hillsborough Attorney, Hillsborough DUI, Hillsborough DUI Attorney, Hillsborough DUI Attorney Lawyer, Hillsborough dui checkpoint, Hillsborough DUI Lawyer, Law Office of W.F. "Casey" Ebsary, Lawyer, Pasco, Pasco County, Pasco County Dui Defense Attorney, Pasco DUI, Pasco DUI Attorney, Pasco DUI Lawyer, Pinellas, Pinellas County DUI, Pinellas DUI, Pinellas DUI Attorney Checkpoint, Pinellas DUI Checkpoint, Pinellas DUI Checkpoints, Pinellas DUI Hillsborough DUI, Pinellas DUI Lawyer, Pinellas Park, Pinellas Park DUI, Pinellas Traffic Attorney, Plant City DUI, Plant City DUI Attorney, Plant City DUI Checkpoint Map, Plant City DUI Lawyer, refusal, Refusal to submit Chemical Test, Refusal to Submit to DUI Testing, REFUSAL TO SUBMIT TO TESTING, Refuse Breath Test, roadblock, roadside test, Roadside Testing, Sobriety Checkpoints, St Petersburg DUI Attorney, St Petersburg DUI Lawyer, St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg DUI, State Trooper, Tampa, Tampa Attorney, Tampa Bay DUI, Tampa Criminal Defense, Tampa criminal defense attorney, Tampa Defense Attorney, Tampa Driving Under Influence, Tampa DUI, Tampa DUI Attorney, Tampa DUI Checkpoint Roadblock Police Manual, Tampa DUI Defense, Tampa DUI Defense Attorney, Tampa DUI Florida, Tampa DUI Lawyer, Tampa Florida DUI Attorney / Lawyer, Tampa Lawyer, Tampa Palms, Tampa Palms DUI, Tampa Police, Tampa Police Department, Temple Terrace, Temple Terrace DUI, Temple Terrace Florida Defense Lawyer, Town and Country DUI Checkpoint, TPD, traffic stop, traffic stop video, Uncategorized, USF, USF DUI Checkpoint, USF Police, Video, videos, videotapes, www.DUIFla.com

DUI Attorney Tampa Videos

Tampa Traffic Stop DUI Videos

“an inside look at criminal traffic stops for DUI”

Florida DUI Criminal Defense Attorney presents Traffic Stop DUI videos from inside a patrol car. In this series of DUI videos, narrated by Florida DUI Attorney, W F Casey Ebsary Jr, gives you an inside look at criminal traffic stops for DUI in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Casey is a Criminal Trial Lawyer, former Prosecutor, and a Defense Attorney, defending DUI charges for over 10 years.

Tampa Attorney Checkpoint DUI Videos

“we decided to send our team out to take a look”

Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office in Tampa, Florida decided to have a DUI Checkpoint, so we decided to send our team out to take a look DUI videos. They pulled over every fifth car. We witnessed Zero arrests. Tell Us Your Story Toll-Free 1-877-793-9290.

DUI Videos Refusal Of Breath Test

“video of Refusal of a Breath Test after an arrest for DUI”

Tampa DUI Criminal Defense Attorney shows videos of Refusal of a Breath Test after an arrest for DUI, in this 2-minute video. A Hillsborough County Florida Sheriff’s Deputy administers a Breath Test Warning / Request in a Florida DUI case.

Tampa Florida DUI videos Field Sobriety Tests

“an inside look at field sobriety tests for DUI” 

Florida DUI Criminal Defense Attorney presents Field Sobriety Exercises videos. This production is one of a series of videos, narrated by Florida DUI Attorney, W F Casey Ebsary Jr and gives you an inside look at field sobriety tests for DUI in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. Casey is a Criminal Trial Lawyer and a former Prosecutor, defending DUI charges for over 20 years
dui breath test, Intoxilyzer

Tinkering with Breath Machines Used in Florida DUI Prosecutions may be Over

dui breath test, Intoxilyzer Results
Florida Intoxilyzer Lawyer
Florida State officials have made modifications to breath machines and their software for years. Courts have looked the other way until now. 
For years the breath results in DUI cases were admitted into evidence and shown to a jury with no scientific evidence presented in court as to the machine’s accuracy. Recently, a Florida Driving Under the Influence court ruled that the State Attorney must establish the admission of an Intoxilyzer Breath Test result. Prosecutors must use the traditional scientific predicate  to introduce breath test results from Intoxilyzer 8000 in a trial. The court ruled that it could not determine whether the modified Intoxilyzer 8000 used in Florida was same machine / instrument approved by NHTSA ( National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ) for use in Florida.

Complete Text of the Opinion

State v. Garcia, ( 20th Cir Aug 20, 2014) (appeal of consolidated county court cases).
This interlocutory appeal represents twenty-six Collier County appeals that have been consolidated into one because they involve identical issues regarding the Intoxilyzer 8000, appealed from identical non-final orders issued in each of the county court cases by a single judge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(c). Appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress is a mixed question of fact and law. State v. Busciglio, 976 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) [33 Fla. L. Weekly D267c]. “The trial court’s findings of fact are presumed correct and will be reversed only if they are not supported by competent, substantial evidence.” Id. at 18. The appellate court’s review of the trial court’s application of the law to its determination of facts is de novo. Id. We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Appellants presented two issues for appeal after the trial court denied suppression of the breath test results and required the Appellants to establish the traditional scientific predicate prior to admitting the results at trial. As to Issue I, whether the Appellees sustained their burden of proving that the State of Florida did not perform the breath tests in question on an approved breath test instrument, thereby depriving the State of the benefit of the implied consent law, we affirm the trial court’s ruling without further discussion.
As to Issue II, whether the trial court erred in ordering the State of Florida to establish the traditional scientific predicate in order to introduce breath test results at trial, this Court holds that: (1) the trial court made the correct legal conclusion that FDLE regulations required that the Intoxilyzer 8000 be in continued compliance with NHTSA’s model specifications; and (2) competent substantial evidence supported the trial court’s ruling that the State was required to establish the traditional scientific predicate. In its initial brief, the State requests that this Court rule on whether the modified Intoxilyzer 8000 is the same instrument as the one listed on the NHTSA conforming products list. However, the Appellate Court has no authority to make such a factual finding. Farneth v. State, 945 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D65a] (holding that a fundamental principle of appellate procedure is that an appellate court is not empowered to make findings of fact).
The State further asks this Court, if it were to find that the modified Intoxilyzer 8000 was a different instrument, whether FDLE must resubmit the device for retesting in order to continue to use the machine. However, this issue misstates the trial court’s ruling. In its Order, the lower court did not exclude the use of the breath test results; rather, the lower court ordered that the State must establish the traditional scientific predicate in order to introduce the results at trial. In addition, the lower court did not order that the State must resubmit the machine to NHTSA.
The determination of whether the State showed substantial compliance with the Implied Consent law is a factual finding by the trial court. The appropriate standard of review for factual findings is whether the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. The trial court did not err in concluding that the State failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the Implied Consent law. The trial court ruled that it could not determine whether the instrument was the same as the one approved for use in Florida in light of all of the modifications that occurred and the fact that those modifications were not reported to NHTSA. The presumption of correctness is strongest when reviewing a judgment based upon factual findings of the trial court. Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc. v. Equestrian Club Estates Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc., 949 So. 2d 347 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) [32 Fla. L. Weekly D605b]. The trial court’s ruling on Issue II is affirmed.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM. (CARLIN, STEINBECK, M.O., and VOLZ., JJ., concur.)

DUI2Go.com Conclusion

Tinkering with Intoxilyzer 8000 Breath Machines used in Florida DUI Prosecutions may be over.