subcommittees are comprised of subject matter experts in their respective fields and provide valuable advice and guid- ance to these programs.
DREs: Trained Observers Drug Recognition Experts have skills that set them apart from many other professions. Medical professionals im- mediately recognize how the central nervous system (CNS) is affected by the ingestion of psychoactive substances. Some of these effects are visible to the trained observer. DREs are taught to assess physiological indicators that are influenced through the CNS by the ingestion of impairing substances. For example, central nervous system stimu- lants, such as methamphetamine, cause the user’s pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature to increase. DREs are trained to take these vital signs as part of their evaluation of the subject suspected of drug-impaired driving. This same drug also dilates the user’s pupils, so DREs estimate the suspect’s pupil sizes by comparing the suspect’s pupils with a reference card containing circles of pre- determined sizes. The diameters of the circles on the card are in turn associated with studies of pupil sizes in published studies of non-impaired subjects to help determine if a subject’s eyes are dilated, normal, or constricted. DREs system- atically accrue evidence from many indicators that are controlled by the CNS to help identify drug categories that are most likely responsible for that effect. DREs also acquire experience few
medical professionals attain. Medical doctors typically encounter patients who have taken drugs in two condi- tions—therapeutic doses, and overdoses. In cases involving a patient who has consumed a therapeutic dose, little to no impairment is common. Patients taking therapeutic doses rarely attract the atten- tion of DWI investigators because they
24 datia focus
look and act “normal.” In the other ex- treme, patients who are seen by a doctor after taking an overdose are oftentimes near death. In such a state, these subjects are incapable of driving and again are not typically experienced by the DWI en- forcement officer. In contrast, the subject who self-doses decides the quantity to be ingested, which commonly exceeds the therapeutic range (if it exists), and only rarely reaches the overdose state. These are the subjects the DREs encounter, and these are the ones who attempt to drive, who cause the traffic crashes, and, sometimes, kill themselves or others. These are the ones who are DWI and are the ones that only sometimes get caught and arrested.
DREs: Bridging the Gap While the DRE is not always the one who makes the initial arrest, he/she does enter the investigation in a support role. Te DRE evaluates the suspect and renders an opinion as to the cause of impairment. Sometimes the impairment is caused by a medical condition, sometimes by alcohol only, or sometimes it is a result of the ingestion of drugs. Te DRE commits to this opinion and authors a supplemental report articulating his/her findings and submits it for prosecution. In many cases, a toxicology specimen is obtained from the suspect and submited for analysis. Te substances identified in the specimen serve to corroborate the DREs opinion, and play a vital role in establishing the credibility of the DRE. Without a DRE, prosecutors at- tempt to match toxicology reports with the arresting officer’s testimony, which oſten lacks crucial components that would link the detected drug to the mannerisms of im- pairment. Te DRE serves as an important connector, or bridge, between the impair- ment observed at roadside and the toxicol- ogy report of impairing substances in the suspect’s specimen. As a team, this trio of the arresting officer, DRE, and toxicologist
summer 2014
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64