DREOrderExcludingDREMarylandMarch52012

8/2/2019 DREOrderExcludingDREMarylandMarch52012

1/37

From:

. A : . ~ -

03/05/2012 13:30 #210 P.002/038

I!IliiiII IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR CARROLL COUNTYI!ljII'I,""IIII11!IIIqIIiJIIllIIIj!,I


2/37

From:

IIliI!I!["flIIIIIpIIJiIII',]IIIII11

II

II

II.II

'III[

03/05/2012 13:30 #210 P.003/03

K-11-41490Michael Wayne BuseyK-11-41506Troy Adam Direc to rK-11-41595Timothy Charles RobertsonK-11-41610Danie l Paul CannavoK-11-41627Jonathan Tyle r Car ro l lK-11-41323Ryan Lee AndersonK-12-42335Amy Michel le Giara f faK-11-42127Stephanie Anne BaumesK-11-42203Bonnie Denise BriscoK-11-41519Richard Clarence Pol ingK-11-42185Mark GertzK-11-42060

Defendants* * * *

******

*****

* * MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

recogn i t ion exper t pro toco l and drug recogn i t ionexper t tes t imony are admiss ib le in the Sta te o f

*

Maryland fo r prosecu t ions of persons suspected o f2


3/37

From:

IIj!ilI!.iillIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlr

IIII

II.I

I

03/05/2012 13:30 #210 P.004/03

dr iv ing under the in f luence of drugs or con t ro l l eddangerous subs tances . Afte r hear ing tes t imony and thearguments of counsel the Court he ld the mat te r subcuria .

Fol lowing t hese hea r ings Defendants f i l edt h e i r Motion To Exclude The Drug Recognit ion Exper tProtocol and Drug Recognit ion Expert Opinion.

I . BackgroundThe Drug Recognit ion and Class i f i ca t ion Program

("DEC Programh) was developed in 1979 by two sa rgean t swith the Los Angeles Pol ice Department. In 1986 th eNat iona l Highway Tra f f i c Safe ty Adminis t ra t ion("NHTSA") publ i shed the NHTSA, DRUG EVALUATION ANDCLASSIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM, STUDENT MAJ\fUAL ("DECManual") and in 1987 developed a nat iona l s tandard izedcurr icu lum. In 1990 the In t e rna t iona l Assoc ia t ion ofChiefs of Pol ice ("IACP") became the nat iona lce r t i fy ing agency fo r the drug recogni t ion examiners .

As p a r t of the DEC Program, pol ice o f f i c e r swith no formal s c i e n t i f i c t r a in ing enro l l in a 72-hour

3


4/37

From:

.,03/05/2012 13:30 #210 P.005/03

course designed to teach them about thech a r ac t e r i s t i c s and e f fec t s of seven d i f f e r en tca tegor ies of drugs on a l l major systems ln the humanbody. 1 These pol ice of f ice r s are taught to admin is te ra t w e l v e ~ s t e p drug eva lua t ion and c l a s s i f i c a t i o nprotocol to sub jec t s suspected of impairrnent. 2 The

1 7 Drug Categories

2

I. Central Nervous System Depressants2. Inhalants3. Dissociative Anesthetics4. . Cannabis5. Central Nervous System Stimulants6 . Hallucinogens7. Narcotic Analgesics

12 Steps of the Drug Evaluation Processl . Breath Alcohol Test- A sample of breath is tlken from the test subject to determine theilooeentFation -ofa.lehol., ifw,y,- in tlN test subject.-2. lnterview of Arresting Officer- The DRE consults with the investigator(s) to detem1inethe circumstruJ.ces leading up to the apprehension of the test subject.3. Preliminary Examination - Initial examination of the subject. Some questions are askedin relation to the subject's medicalJphysicallimitations.4. Eye Examination- Eyes are examined for pupils being equal, the ability of he eyes totrack a stimulus equally, to monitor the smootlmess of that tracking, to look for

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, as well as Vertical Gaze Nystagmus.5. Divided Attention Tests- One Leg StruJ.d is done with both legs. Walk and Tum test isdone. Modified Romberg Balance test. And Finger to Nose tes t is done.6. Examination of Vital Signs- Blood pressure, pulse and body temperature is taken.7. Dark Room Examinations - Examination of he pupil sizes in near total darkness, underdirect light, and in normal room light. Examination of the oral and nasal cavities aredone at the same tirne.8. Examination of Muscle Tone- Flexion and Extension of the muscles are tested, to see ifthere is flaccidity, or rigidity of the muscles.

4


5/37

From:

' '

I!iiIIII

03/05/2012 13:31 #210 P.006/03

t e s t t akes approximately 45 minutes to and hour . Atthe conclus ion of t he twe lve -s t ep ana lys is the o f f i c e rmust decide {a) whether the sub jec t has been dr iv ingwhi le under th e in f luence of a drug or drugs and, ofso, (b) what ca tegory o r combinat ion of ca tegor ie s o fdrugs i s impai r ing the sub jec t .

To become a c e r t i f i e d Drug Recogni t ionExaminer ("DRE") a po l i ce o f f i c e r must t ake a72-hour course and obta in a score o f a t l e a s t 80% onthe f i n a l exam.

Although the DRE program i s u t i l i z e d in 45s t a t e s , the presence o f the DRE program does notequate to widespread j u d i c i a l acceptance by a p p e l l a t ecour t s nor acceptance in the medica l community.

9. Examination of lrijection Sites.- Examination ofcommon injection sites to determine ifthe subject is using injected substances.10. Suspects Statements I Other Observations- Soliciting information from the test subjectwhich will corroborate signs and symptoms that the evaluator has observed.11. Opinion of the Evaluator- The DRE makes a determination of he class or classes of

drugs that a subject is under the influence based on a matrix ofsymptomology that hasbeen developed during studies of subjects under the influence of known classes ofdrugs.12. The Toxicological Examination- Blood, saliva or urine is obtained by demand, which isanalyzed to detennine what class of substances are present that corroborates the DRE'sop1ruon.

5


6/37

From: 03/05/2012 13:31 #210 P.00?/03

I I . Expert tes t imonyThe S ta t e presen ted s ix expe r t wi tnesses :

Dr. Karl Ci tek , M s ~ Michel le Spi rk , Mr. Will iamTower I I I , Off i ce r William Morrison, L t. ThomasWoodward and Dr. Zenon Zuk.

Dr. Karl Ci tek t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s anoptomet r i s t who i s a l so a primary care phys ic ian . Het e s t i f i e d t h a t he d id not a t tend medical school . (Tr.9/20/10 a t 38) He t e s t i f i e d t ha t he i s a member of thead junc t facul ty a t the I n s t i t u t e of Pol ice Technologyand Management and t eaches a course ca l l ed Medica lFoundat ions o f Visua l System Test ing , a t h r e e ~ d a y course on the medical and s c i e n t i f i c background behindthe DRE pro toco l . ( Id . a t 26) Dr. Citek t e s t i f i e d t h a the has given presen ta t ions and l e c tu re s to OREs fo rwhich he has rece ived some compensat ion and hasobserved DRE c e r t i f i c a t i o n t r a in ing in Oregon, Flo r idaand Louis iana on a t l e a s t 100 occas ions . ( Id . a t 35,48) Dr. Citek t e s t i f i e d t h a t the DRE courses a recommonly t augh t by o the r pol i ce o f f i c e r s . (9 /20/2010a t 179, 203) He t e s t i f i e d t ha t the DRE i s "making adiagnos i s of whether the person i s impai red by a drugor medical conai t i .on . u tTr. /2( ! /10 a t 154 r. f}r.Citek t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s not a member of th e IACP orthe ORE t e c h n i c a l advisory board . ( Id. 183) Dr. Ci tekt e s t i f i e d t h a t the re i s no se t number of major o rgenera l ind ica to r s t h a t a ORE needs to f ind to reachan opinion of drug impairment, al though in h is opin iononly one i n d i c a to r would not be enough to f ind drugimpairment . He fu r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t DREs a re no ti n s t ruc ted by the DEC Program t h a t only one i n d i c a t o rwould be i n s u f i c i e n t . (Tr. a t 208, 219) Dr. Ci tekdesc r ibed the DRE pro toco l as "a d iagnos t i c t e s t " t h a tal lows [DREs] " to d ie ren t i a te not only betweenimpaired and unimpai red people but , when impairment i s

6


7/37

From:

' .!jI'!I!liI'IIilliII,II!Ilj

II'I.I[III,ilIII[I.III[III[[,I'I

03/05/2012 13:31 #210 P.OOS/03

found, whether it i s a medica l or drug impai rment . "(Tr. 9/20/10 a t 220) Dr. Citek t e s t i f i e d t h a t t he rea re medica l d i so rde r s t h a t wi l l a c t u a l l y cause smoothp u r s u i t and d i s t i n c t and sus ta ined nystagmus a tmaximum de v i a t i on and when d i s t ingu i sh ing betweenmedica l and drug impairment the ORE must unders t andhow many c lue s a re necessa ry to f i nd HGN. (Tr.9/21/10 a t 25) Dr. Ci tek t e s t i f i e d t h a t t he s e medica ld i so rde r s are no t expla ined in the DEC Manual and t h i si s "another s h o r t f a l l o f t h i s manual ..and th e t r a i n in g "and he has recommended in the pa s t to make changes toth e manual. ( Id . a t 25) Dr. Citek t e s t i f i e d t h a tt he re i s "noth ing in th e medical or s c i e n t i f i ccommunity t h a t v a l i d a t e s t h a t HGN makes you unable todr i ve s a f e l y . " ( Id . a t 37)

Ms. Michel le Sp i rk t e s t i f i e d t h a t she has aMasters Degree in Bio-Chemis t ry and has been employedwith the Arizona Department of Publ ic Safe ty fo rtwenty years . She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she s upe rv i s e st o x i c o lo g i s t s who perform blood, a lcohol , ur ine , andblood drug s c re e n ing . (Tr . 9/21/10 a t 7 9, 119) Ms.Sp i rk t e s t i f i e d t h a t she was been he a v i l y i nvo lved inth e DRE program s ince she began work in the ArizonaS t a t e Crime Labora tory . _She a t tended ORE schooldur ing her f i r s t yea r o f employment. She t e s t i f i e dt h a t she s i t s on the Arizona ORE St e e r i ng CoiTmitteeand a t t e n d s monthly meetings. ( Id . a t 82-83}- Shet e s t i f i e d t h a t she t eaches fo r the Arizona OREprogram. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t she does no t have adegree in tox ico logy , fo rens ic tox ico logy , o r any areaof pharmacology. ( Id . 92-93) The Sta t e o f fe red h e r asan expe r t in th e areas o f pharmacology, c l i n i c a lr e s e a rc h , fo r e ns i c tox ico logy_and ORE pro toco l . TheCour t qua l i f i ed Ms. Spi rk to t e s t i f y in the f i e ld oftox ico logy only . ( Id . a t 131) Ms. Spi rk was a l lowedto t e s t i f y "as to th e poss i b l e e f f e c t s of a drug , b u tnot the e f f e c t on d r iv in g . " ( Id . 145)

7


8/37

From:>/,

II.I:I!IIIIIIil,IIIIIIIII

III'I

IIIIII'IIII

II

03/05/2012 13:32 #210 P.009/03

Mr. Will iam Tower I I I t e s t i f i e d t ha t he lS alaw enforcement l i a i son fo r tne Nat iona l HighwayTra f f i c Safe ty Adminis t ra t ion and In t e rna t iona lAssocia t ion o f Chiefs of Pol ice (IACP). In 1987 heand two other sp ec i a l i s t s developed the DREcurr iculum. (Tr. 2/14/11 a t 12-15)

Mr. Tower t e s t i f i e d t h a t the DRE was developedby pol ice o f f i ce r s from the Los Angeles Poi iceDepartment. In 1979 the Drug Recogni t ion programrece ived the o f f i c i a l recogni t ion o f the LAPD. Mr.Tower t e s t i f i e d t h a t in 1986 the Nat iona l HighwayTra f f i c Safe ty Adminis t ra t ion ("NHTSA") becameinvolved in orde r to make a more s t andard ized manualand a c e r t i f i c a t ion process fo r use na t iona l ly . (Tr.2/14/11 a t 16-17, 22) Mr. Tower t e s t i f i e d t h a t NHTSAtook pa r t s of two programs ex i s t ing a t the t ime, theLAPD and the Cal i fo rn ia Highway Pa t ro l , and by 1987developed a n a t i o n a l s tandardized curr iculum. ( Id . a t25-26, 42) In 1990 the In t e rna t iona l Assoc ia t ion ofChiefs of Pol ice ("IACP") assumed con t ro l of the DECProgram. ( Id. a t 53) Mr. Tower t e s t i f i e d t h a t theprogram i s u t i l i zed in 45 s t a t e s .

Mr. Tower t e s t i f i e d t h a t a p o l i c e o f f i c e rwho en ters the DEC Program to become a DRE i s notrequired to have any p r io r medical t r a in in g . (Tr. a t

-182) An o f f i c e r =st t a k e ;:; s t a nda rd i z e d three--daycourse on f i e ld sobr ie ty t e s t s fol lowed by a two-dayDRE t e s t . I f th e o f f i c e r passes with 80 o r above, hewi l l begin the seven-day DRE school where he w i l llea rn the 12-s t ep process and must t ake a 100-ques t iont e s t a t the end and pass with a score of a t l e a s t 80.(Id. a t 27-28)

Mr. Tower t e s t i f i e d t h a t the DEC Program seeksto t r a in pol ice o f f i ce r s to conduct a "sys temat ic ands tandardized" e:>eamination of a suspect in orde r todetermine:

8


9/37

From:

1.

I11

03/05/2012 13:32 #210 P.010/03

1 .Whether th e su b j ec t i s impai red; and, if so ,2 .Whether th e impai rment i s caused by drugs o ra medica l condi t ion ; and, if drugs ,3 .The ca tegory or combinat ion of c a t e g o r i e s ofdrugs t h a t are the l i ke ly cause o f th es u b j e c t ' s impai rment .

( Id. a t 30-32)Mr. Tower fu r the r t e s t i f i e d t h a t in add i t i on to

th e wide d i s c r e t i o n i n what weight to give th ei n d i c a t o r s on th e m a t r ix , th e DRE i s no t even r eq u i r edto complete th e 12-s t ep p ro toco l to reach an opin ionas those s t eps a re merely "p re f e r r ed . " (Tr . 2/14/11a t 95-96) . Mr. Tower t e s t i f i e d that even if no drugsa t a ~ ~ are found in the s u b j ec t ' s b ~ o o d , t h e DREi s"not go ing to change [ the ir ] opinion af ter you g e t theblood." ( Id . a t 103-04) M r. Tower s tated t h at thereason there would be no change in the o f f i c e r ' sopinion is t h at "you are l imi t ed on what the lab cant e s t for ." ( Id . a t 104) (Emphasis su p p l i ed . )

O f f i c e r Will iam Morrison t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i sa member o f th e Montgomery County Pol ice Department .He i s th e coord ina to r fo r the Montgomery County Pol i ceDepar tment ' s Chemical Tes t Uni t . O f f i ce r Morr i sont e s t i f i e d t h a t he mainta ins i n tox imeter s and overseesldkGGd t e s t i ng and th e County 's . DRE. program. Hea l so r espons ib le fo r t r a in i n g r e l a t e d t o underagedr ink ing , DWI and pre l iminary brea th t e s t i n g . Off i ce rMorrison has been a c e r t i f i e d DRE s ince 1991. O f f i c e rMorrison t e s t i f i e d t h a t he teaches DRE i n - s e r v i c et ra in ing and has per formed over 1,000 DRE eva lua t i ons .(Tr. 2/14/11 a t 110)

He t e s t i f i e d t h a t as soon as a DRE i sc e r t i f i e d they a re cons ide red f u l l y q u a l i f i e d tor ender an opin ion , i nc lud ing ru l ing o u t medica lcauses , fo r any perce ived impai rment by th e o f f i c e r .( Id. a t 80-91) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t th e DRE i ss p e c i f i c a l l y making a medical d iagnos i s du r ing the

9


10/37

From:

IIIilIIiiI',IliIIliilIII''I.ilIIII,III

03/05/2012 13:32 #210 P.011/03

examinat ion by ru l i ng o u t medica l cond i t ions dur ingth e examinat ion . ( Id . a t 207)

He t e s t i f i e d t h a t when th e matr ix says" i n d i ca t ed " it means on ly t h a t it i n d i c a t e s t h a tsev e r a l t h ings could be p r e s e n t - i t could i n d i c a t e th epresence o f drugs , impairment by drugs , or cou ldsimply be impa i rment by a medica l co n d i t i o n . (Tr.2/15/11 a t 25) O f f i c e r Morrison who t e s t i f i e d t h a t hehas been invo lved with th e program fo r 20 y e a r s and al ong- t ime i n s t r u c t o r t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had no idea whysome i n d i c a t o r s a re c a l l e d "Major" and o t h e r s a reca l l ed "Genera l . " ( Id . a t 25-26) O f f i c e r Morr isont e s t i f i e d t h a t he does no t need to have any s e t numbero f ind i ca to r s i n orde r to f ind someone impa i r edbecause a DRE l ooks a t th e " t o t a l i t y of eve ry th ing"and u l t i m a t e l y it comes down to t h e i r medica ljudgment . ( Id . a t 59, 65)

L t. Thomas Woodward t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s th ecu r r en t commander o f th e Maryland S t a t e Pol i ce Barrackin Hagers town, Maryland. He has se rved in lawenforcement fo r t h i r t y year s and befo re h is ass ignmentin Hagerstown he was commander o f the chemica l t e s tfo r a lcoho l u n i t . (Tr . 2/15/11 a t 87) He t e s t i f i e dt h a t he has been Sta t e coord ina to r fo r th e MarylandORE program fo r th e l a s t ten years and i s r espons ib le' for ens-uring Maryland .OREs a r e t r a i n e d and c e r t i f i e daccording to IACP g u i d e l i n es .( Id . a t 88)

Dr. Zenon Zuk t e s t i f i e d t h a t he has p r a c t i c e dmedic ine fo r 30 yeurs and the major i ty o f h is prac t i c einvolves worker s ' compensat ion cases . He has t e s t i f i e don b e h a l f o f th e ORE pro toco l f i f t e e n t im e s . (Tr .9/22/10 a t 176) Dr. Zuk t e s t i f i e d t h a t he rev iewedthe ORE Manual befo re t e s t i f y i n g t oday and p r i o r tot h a t he had no t read th e ORE Manual fo r f i f t e e n yea rs .

10


11/37

From:

I

03/05/2012 13:33 #210 P.012/03

He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he per forms work fo r th eWestern Branch of the United Sta t e s Immigra t ionServ ice and admin is te red depor ta t ion p ro toco l to beused dur ing i n - f l i g h t de por t a t i ons . (Tr. 9/22/10 a t171-172) The purpose of the pro toco l was t o i n s u r et h a t the J u s t i c e Depar tment was not f ined fo remergency landings or abor t ed l and ings by medica lmishaps in f l i g h t . (Id . 171-172) He t e s t i f i e d t h a the sedated depor tees wi th drugs to assure t h e i rcoopera t ion and t h a t one of the drugs he used was aPCP dis soc ia t ive anes the t i c c a l l Droper idol_ (Tr .9/23/10 a t 36) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t in 17 years he d id at o t a l of 182 seda t ions and t h a t " in probab ly h a l f th ecases it would be c o n s i d e r ~ d aga ins t t h e i r w i l l . "( Id . a t 36) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t " the e f f e c t on th ei nd iv idua l s t h a t I adminis tered it so t h a t it wouldthey would still pe rc e ive an awareness o f an even tt h a t they were anxious about but they demonst ra tedl e s s concern about it. So, it was - p a r t of th ereason why a d i s s o c i a t i v e anes the t i c made so muchs en s e - - i t r e a l l y cu t s o f f t h e i r a b i l i t y to respondemot iona l ly to what they know cogn i t ive ly . " ( Id . 36)

He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he became i n t e r e s t e d in th eDRE program because he wanted to l ea rn the DRE s k i l ls e t with i t s use o f the Tharp ' s Equat ion . (Tr .9/23/10 a t 49) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t th e Tharp 's Equat ioni s used by a Elt


12/37

From:

'

I11I:'II\IIilp,.li

li'I[IIIilIIII"llI

03/05/2012 13:33 #210 P.013/03

Defendants ' ca l led three expe r t s : Dr.Franc i s Genge, Dr. Neal Adams, and Dr. Je f f reyJanofsky.

Dr. Franc i s Genge t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s ac l i n i c a l pharmacologis t With a pos t doc to ra lfe l lowship in pharmacokine t ics and pharmacodynamics.Dr. Genge has held var ious academic appointments a tSUNY Buffalo inc lud ing Associa te Professor ofPharmacy, Associa te Professor of Neurology in theSchool of Medicine and a cour tesy appointment in th eDepartment of Neurosurgery where he l e c tu r e s toneurosurgery r e s i d e n t s about the use of medica t ions inpa t i en t s who have acute neurologic problems. Hecur ren t ly holds two pos i t ions a t the Dent NeurologicIns t i t u t e : Direc to r of Cl in ica l Research fo r th e DentNeurologic Group and Chief Science Off ice r fo r theDent Neuroscience Research Center . Dr. Genge t eachesmedical and pharmacology s tuden t s as p a r t o f ac l i n i c a l ro t a t ion from SUNY Buffa lo . Dr. Genget e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s responsib le fo r medicat iontherapy management and conducts comprehensive reviewsof p a t i en t records to determine spec i f i c e f f i cacy andtox ic i ty of p a t i e n t medicat ions and e l imina teredundant medica t ions . (Tr. 9 /28 /10 13-20)

Dr. Genge has authored s ix ty - f i v e peerreviewed and publ ished a r t i c l e s and th ree o f thosea r t i c l e s are sp e c i f i c a l l y in the a rea o f drug impaireddr iv ing . He has con t r ibu ted to t ex t books in the f i e ldof c l i n i c a l pharmacology, e . g . , Neurology In C l in i ca lPrac t ice , C l in ica l Pharmacokinet ics , and Drug Effec t sOn Human Function. (Id. a t 26-27)

Dr. Gengo t e s t i f i e d t h a t the ORE makes l a rge lysub jec t ive observa t ions . Dr. Genge s t r es sed t h a t " theORE t echn ic ian ..i s not in a pos i t ion to apprec ia teo the r diseases much l e s s diagnose t h e i r presencen and

12


13/37

From:

III'llI'III/iIIlj!II!ilj'IIIIIIIII!'III

03/05/2012 13:33 #210 P.014/03

would have to exerc i se medical and pharmacologicjudgment to do so . (Tr. 9/28/10 a t 86) Dr. Gengot e s t i f i e d t h a t he has no t seen "any da ta todemons t ra te t h a t [DREs] can di sce rn medical d i seaseinduced problems from drug induced impairment" and iti s h is opin ion based on h i s t r a i n in g in pharmacologyand c l i n i c a l re sea rch t h a t they cannot do t h i s . " ( Id .a t 87, 89) Dr. Gengo t e s t i f i e d t h a t th e in format ionco l l ec ted by th e DRE i s s imply no t s u f f i c i e n t torender a medical d i a gnos i s . ( Id . a t 90)

Dr. Gengo t e s t i f i e d t h a t while th e DREs may beus ing w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d p r in c ip l e s such as bloodpre s su re , pulse , and eye examinat ions " thos e t o o l s a rebeing used by [DRE] t echn ic ians in a novel andunre l i ab le way." (Tr. 9/29/10 a t 90) He f u r t h e rt e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e re i s a d i f f e r e nc e betweeneva lua t ing a lcoh6l and drugs and the e f f e c t a s p e c i f i cdrug has on an i n d iv id u a l would have many morev a r i a b l e s than one ge ne ra l l y sees with a lcoho l . Dr.Gengo t e s t i f i e d t h a t a person su f fe r in g fromwithdrawal from methadone would be s u f f e r i n g fromprofuse swea t ing and would be d i s t r a c t e d , a g i t a t e d ,i r r i t a b l e , and t h e i r b lood pressure would be e l ev a ted .That person could appear to be under the i n f l ue nc e o fa drug when in f a c t t h e re i s no t enough o f th e drug int h e i r system. A DRE would have to d i s t i n g u i s h somehowbetween signs and symptoms exh ib i t ed by someone v;hoa c tu a l l y had no drug in t h e i r blood . (Tr. 9/28/10 a t62-63)

Dr. Gengo t e s t i f i e d t h a t th e drugs re fe rencedin th e mat r ix are m is c l a s s i f i e d and t h a t some of t hedrugs have a comple te ly d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t on the bodyt han what i s p r e d i c t e d in the ma t r ix . (Tr . 9/28 /10 a t67) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n sys tem i sfa r too broad and t h a t even if the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i sl im i t ed to an t i -d ep res san t s t h e re are many d i f f e r e n tt ypes t h a t a f f e c t th e c e n t r a l nervous systemd i f f e r e n t l y . (Tr . 9/28 /10 a t 64) He went on to say

13


14/37

From:

I

!r,Ii["iinIIi'I'!/I,II!I"iI,I

03/05/2012 13:34 #210 P.015/03

t ha t " the data has spoken fo r i t s e l f t ha t [ the OREprotocol] cannot re l i ab ly discern impairment from nonimpairment and cannot re l i ab ly iden t i fy the medica t iona l legedly causing th e impairment ." (Id. a t 91) Dr.Gengo t e s t i f i e d t ha t the matr ix l i s t s dura t ion ofef fec t s fo r cer ta in drugs and t h a t the informat ioncontained i s a l l bu t meaningless because of thegrouping. (Tr. 9/28/10 a t 145) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t theseven ca tegor ies are so vague and they contain such adiverse group of drug c lasses t ha t the dura t ion ofef fec t s contain little or no useful informat ion . (Tr,9/28/10 a t 146)

Dr. Neal Adams t e s t i f i e d t ha t he i s anIII!11:1. ophthalmologis t and was t r a ined a t Johns HopkinsII Unive r s i ty ' s Wilmer Eye Ins t i t u t e . Following hisI res idency, Dr. Adams received a medical degree from1

1,

1

, Johns Hopkins Univers i ty . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i sl i censed to prac t i ce ophthalmology in th ree s t a t e s

1 including Maryland. (Tr. 9/29/10 a t 8-12) He t e s t i f i e d

I

II t ha t he was appointed Division Chief of VisualPhysiology and Direc to r o f the Ret ina l Eye I n s t i t u t e

a t Wilmer Eye I n s t i t u t e while s imul taneously hold ingthe pos i t ion of as s i s t an t professor of ophthalmology.He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was designated a "MonumaryScholar ," the schoo l ' s h ighes t t eaching award. Hereceived advanced t r a in ing a t th e Nat ional EyeIn s t i t u t e s and t he rea f t e r held key c l in i c a l researchpos i t ions u t i l i z ing Nat iona l Ins t i t u t e s of H ~ a l t h gran ts . Dr. Adams accepted an appointment as Chair ofthe Ophthalmology Department a t Texas Tech Univers i tyMedical School . Dr. Adams has par t i c ipa ted in mul t ip lec l i n i ca l t r i a l s involving the e f f ec t ofpharmaceut icals on vis ion and othe r i s sues . (Id. a t18-20)

Dr. Adams t e s t i f i e d t h a t the "Tharp ' s Equat ioni s a gross d i s to r t ion o f what i s in the medicall i t e r a t u r e . Other than t h a t , I don ' t f ind any

14II


15/37

From:

II.II

III

I

trI

03/05/2012 13:34 #210 P.016/03

v a l i d i t y in the f i e ld o f medicine or in the f i e l d ofophthalmology to t h i s equat ion .u (Tr. 9/30/10 a t 23-26) Dr. Adams t e s t i f i e d t h a t he doesn ' t ~ a g r e e withthe DRE pro toco l in the way it i s being used." ( Id .a t 83) He noted t h a t th e matrix "doesn ' t t e l l usr e l a t i v e weights of what i s more important and what toevalua te in one manner versus a d i f f e r en t manner. Wea ~ e looking a t almost a robo t ic matr ix ..n ( !d . a t 36)Dr. Adams gave h is reasons fo r c r i t i c i z i n g the way theDRE i s t aught to use the matr ix:

Medical judgment i s using i tems t h a t may bein a matr ix and plac ing our own exper ience ,our own unders tanding of th e medicall i t e r a t u r e , p lac ing the knowledge t h a t wehave gained in to t h a t matr ix , unders tand ingthe r e l a t i v e weights of d i f f e r en t i tems int ha t matr ix and coming out with a judgment .So t h a t even if we were using t h i s matr ix ini t s t o t a l i t y without anything e l se , the re i san element of judgment t ha t we as phys ic ianswould incorpora te to a s s i s t us. And t h a t i snot presen t ; t h a t i s , it i s a very importantcomponent of the matr ix t ha t i s n o t presen tin t h i s matr ix . And t h a t i s what I wast r y ing to get a t i s how we as phys ic iansi n t e r p r e t these .

(Id . a t 37)Dr. Adams t e s t i f i e d t h a t whether it i s a

doctor or "someone who has th i s spec i f i c ex p e r t i s e , "the examiner must cons ider 11 quest ions beforedi.agnosing nystagmus:

1) I s there nystagmus or i n s t ab i l i t y presen tin the primary pos i t ion o f gaze? I f so ,i s it volun ta ry o r involuntary?

2) What i s the wave form of a nystagmus,i s it pendular o r j e rk?

15


16/37

From:

IIIII

I

1\lrI

,[

IIII

03/05/2012 13:34 #210 P.017/03

3) What is th e f requency of the nystagmus?4) What is th e d i r e c t i o n and t r a j e c t o r y o f

th e qv ick phase o f nystagmus?5) What is th e e f f e c t of a c e n t e r gaze on

Nystagmus? I s it gaze evoked?6) I s a nystagmus conjuga te o r discon juga te?

I s it d i s c on juga t e , i s it d i s a s s o c i a t e dmeaning mainly or on ly in one eye? Or i sit d i s junc t ive? Equal and oppose in th etwo eyes?

7) I s th e nys tagmus induced o r i n f luencedby maneuver such aS head t i l t i n g , changesin head pos tu re , convergence , cover ing o fone eye, removal o f v i sua l f i x a t i o n ..c l o s i ng of bo th eyes or hype rve n t i l a t i ons?8) I s th e nystagmus pe r iod i c ?

9) I s th e nys tagmus assoc ia ted with anyoc u l a r o r gaze pa l sy?

10) I s th e nys tagmus assoc ia ted wi th any o t h e rinvo lun ta ry movements, fo r example,i nvo lun ta ry movements of the head, e y e l i d s ,p a l l e t o r e a ~ drum?

11) I s th e nys tagmus symptomatic and, inp a r t i c u l a r , i s it caus ing o c i l l o p s i a ?

(Tr . 9/29/10 a t 27-29)Dr. Adams t e s t i f i e d t h a t in t.ne Shin.ar Study

(Defense E xh ib i t 4) OREs found HGN in c a t e go r i e s wherea drug could n o t even cause HGN and i n h i s e xpe r topin ion t h a t demons t ra te s u t ha t you r e a l l y need twot h ings to i n t e r p r e t nystagmus. You need a prope r l yperformed t e s t and you need to unders t and nystagmusand be ab le to ask t he s e o t he r e leven que s t ions to beab le to de te rmine where t h a t nystagmus carne f rom."(Tr . 9/29/10 a t 57-58) He fu r the r t e s t i f i e d t h a t noneo f the ques t ions t h a t must be asked in order toprope r ly diagnose nystagmus, however, a re asked by th eDRE. ( Id . a t 61) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t he r e a re manymedica l c ond i t i ons t h a t can cause HGN i nc lud ing th e

16


17/37

From:

I

IIIIIIIilIIIIIIIIi

IIII

II'I

IIII

03/05/2012 13:35 #210 P.018/03

f lu , measles , eye s t r a in , glaucoma and hered i ty , aswel l as subs tances such as ca f fe ine and asp i r in and iti s very d i f f i c u l t even fo r physic ians to d i s t ingu i shbetween medical condi t ions and alcohol or drugs. (Tr.a t 62-64)

Dr. Je f f rey Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t he i s anassoc ia te professor of psych ia t ry a t Johns HopkinsUnivers i ty School of Medicine. He i s a lso an educa tora t The Univers i ty of Maryland and the MarylandJud ic ia ry as p a r t of the ASTAR program. He t e s t i f i e dt h a t he t eaches a c l i n i c a l psych ia t ry program t h a tinvolves medical s tuden ts , nurs ing s tuden ts and s o c i a lwo.rk s tuden t s . The program adminis te rs hea l th care topa t i en t s who a re ill mental ly and phys ica l ly and a ree i th e r cur ren t ly using drugs or have used drugs in thepas t . (Tr. 9/23/10 183-186) Dr. Janofsky was appointeda C l in i c a l Professor Psychia t ry a t the Univers i tyof Maryland. He i s co-d i r ec to r fo r the P r e t r i a lMental Health Screening Program fo r the Dis t r i c tCour t . He superv i ses Unive rs i ty of Maryland medica ls tudents , re s iden t s and fe l lows who are ro t a t ingthrough fo rens ic psych ia t ry , t eaching them how to dovar ious kinds of eva lua t ions . He has authored twentyfour peer reviewed sc i e n t i f i c j ou rna l a r t i c l e s t h a thave appeared in the Journa l of Academy of Psych ia t ryand the Law, The Journa l of the American Academy o fPsych ia t ry and th e Law, as we l l as th e Journa l o f thBAmerican Psych ia t r i c Associa t ion . ( Id. a t 171-174)

He t e s t i f i e d t h a t peer reviewed and publ i shedl i t e r a t u r e must be performed before a technique l i k ethe DRE would be accepted among the medica l andsc i e n t i f i c communit ies . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he was.asked to review th e DRE program in 1992 he found t h a t" there was ac tu a l l y not a s ing le s tudy rega rd ing theDRE published in ... peer review s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e . "He t e s t i f i ed tha t if they're going to perform a t e s tthat purportedly predict s an impairment by a spec i f i cdrug, which he be l i eves no reasonable c l in i ca l

17


18/37

From:

"'

IIIIqIII!I.I!,ilIIIIli'IIIIIIilI'I)!II!rI

'I

I!

03/05/2012 13:35 #210 P.019/03

prac t i t ioner would ever do, you would want a couple o fpeer reviewed s tudies that say you can do itconsidering it's about cr iminal sanct ions ." (Emphasissupp l ied . ) (Tr. 9/23/10 a t 200-01)

Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t the ORE 12-s teppro toco l and mat r ix i s not a diagnos t ic t e s t or as tandard ized p ro toco l because it r equ i re s c l i n i c a lmedical judgment . (Tr. 9/23/10 a t 216-18)Dr. Janofsky fu r the r t e s t i f i e d :

Folks t h a t d o n ' t have such [medical]t r a in ing , fo r example, l abo ra to ry t echn ic i ansor a ids can be t r a ined to adminis te r a pro toco l aslong as it's done in exac t ly the same way everys ing le t ime and the r e s u l t s can be c lea r lydiscerned from each s tage .So you would never ask someone who i sact ing as a t echn ic ian to use t h e i rjudgment to decide which DRE fac tors on thematr ix are most impor tan t or, even morer id i cu lous ly f rankly , to ru le out amedical condi t ion . They c a n ' t do it.They d o n ' t have the t r a in ing orexper ience to do it.So, when you design a pro toco l fo r a fle!nprofess iona l , it's very important t h a tit be s tandard ized in a way t h a t can bedone the same way over and over again t h a t ' sr e l i ab l e , meaning t h a t when mul t ip lepeople t e s t the same sub jec t they g e texac t ly the same r esu l t and t h a t it'sva l id . That it repea ted ly ac tua l lymeasures what it purpor ts to measure.A ll of the s tud ie s t h a t I ' ve reviewedshowed f i r s t of a l l the re i s no r e l i a b l edata a t a l l and showed t h a t the s tud ie s

18


19/37

From:

IIil1:ii"'liii!I,IIjili'IIIIIII'II

IItIIIIIII

I

.I

03/05/2012 13:36 #210 P.020/03

are not va l id when t e s ted appropr ia te ly .(I d . )

Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t the matr ix i s notsomething accepted in s c i e n t i f i c and medicalcommunities. He r ep l i ed when asked whether he knewanyone in the medical , psych ia t r i c , s c i e n t i f i c , orc l i n i ca l research f i e lds who accepted the mat r ix asusefu l :

I have got to t e l l you, your Honor, DRE i ssomething t h a t ' s not foremost in the mindof those o f us who take care of subs tanceabusers , c l i n i c a l l y or fo rens i ca l ly . Peopleare aware of it. But it 's- no one Iknow of, no phys ic ian I know of would evencons ide r using t h i s matr ix or the - evenpieces of it in dete rmining e i th e r whethersomeone was impaired on drugs or even morer id i cu lous ly to t e l l which spec i f i c drugca tegory . It's r i d i c u l o u s - I can ' t emphasizet ha t enough.

Id . a t 223.Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t there i s a major

di f fe rence between alcohol and drug i r t teract . ions inthe body. He fu r the r t e s t i f i e d t ha t the DEC Manualimproper ly equa tes the medical d e f i n i t i o n o fimpairment with impairment to dr ive . He t e s t i f i e dt ha t the DEC Manual does not address the concept t h a tcer ta in ind icd lo r s may only show the "presence of thedrug and not i n tox ica t ing l eve l s causing behav iora limpairment ." (Tr. 9/27/10 a t 96-97) . Dr. Janofskyt e s t i f i e d t h a t while there are s tudies l inking a lcoholto d r iv ing impairment , no s tud ie s e x i s t regarding thedrugs the DRE l i s t s in i t s seven ca tegor ie s . Dr.Janofsky a lso t e s t i f i e d t h a t th e drugs i d en t i f i ed i nthe seven drug ca tegor ies are i ncor rec t ly lumped

19


20/37

From:

IIillit!IIilili!llp,I"IIIIIII

03/05/2012 13:36 #210 P.021/03

toge ther , i.e., the CNS depressant c la s s whichinc ludes b a rb i t u r a t e s , Benadryl , var iousbenzodiazepines a ~ d an t idepressan t medicat ions t h a t nophysic ian would group toge ther because they haveex t raord ina r i ly d i f f e r en t neurophys io logic ac t ions .(Tr. 9/27/10 a t 57.) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t there arewhole c lasses of drugs l i s t e d under CNS depressan t st ha t would have the opposi te e f f e c t on the body thanwhat i s l i s t e d fo r t h a t drug ca tegory in the mat r ix .(Id. a t 58) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s mis informat ionconta ined in the DEC Manual l eads to unre l i ab le andincor rec t DRE opinions and demonst ra tes how d i f f i c u l tit i s fo r someone with no medical background to makesuch a medical diagnos i s . ( Id. a t 58) He t . es t i f iedt ha t some drugs the DEC Manual l i s t s as a CNSDepressant do not cause nystagmus even though thematr ix says they do which i n h i s opinion i s "a majorproblem." ( Id . a t 90-91) He t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h i s typeof problem ex i s t s with a l l the types of drugs in thematr ix . (Id. a t 58-59) He fu r the r t e s t i f i e d t h a tthere i s no research to show t h a t HGN impa i r s thea b i l i t y of someone to dr ive and it i s not used in themedical f i e ld as an ind ica to r to show drug impairment .(Id. a t 50-51)

Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t v i t a l s igns are no tsomething the medical community uses to show drugimpairment , and he kr'le'ws -of no one in t.he me.Glical.f i e ld t h a t does use v i t a l s igns as an i nd ica to r . (Id.a t 51)

Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t in h is opinion theen t i re " t o t a l i t y o f th e circumstances" approach theDRE uses in reaching an opinion i s "abso lu te ly" a newand novel app l ica t ion t h a t i s not accepted in themedical community. ( Id . a t 70) Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e dt h a t " i f the DRE i s al lowed to t e s t i f y to a reasonabledegree of a pol ice o f f i c e r ' s ce r t a in ty t h a t based onth i s matr ix the person i s in tox ica ted , the Court w i l l

20


21/37

From:

IIIIllIII!I;!)j,,II,

!II!,'

I

II

03/05/2012 13:36 #210 P.022/03

be rece iv ing inaccura te and f a l se evidence and w i l l beconvic t ing the wrong people . " (Id. a t 86)

: III . Discuss ion

The i s sue before the Court i s whether the DrugRecognit ion Protocol and drug recogni t ion exper ttes t imony i s admiss ib le in the Sta te of Maryland fo rprosecut ion of persons suspected of dr iv ing under th ein f luence of drugs or con t ro l l ed dangerous subs tances .

The Sta te must prove by a preponderance of theevidence t h a t the DRE program i s admiss ible underF r y e ~ R e e d by offe r ing tes t imony and exh ib i t s andpersuas ive au thor i ty from othe r j u r i s d i c t i o n s to showt h a t th.e pro toco l i s not new or novel and the r e l e v a n ts c i e n t i f i c community agrees t h a t the DEC program'smethodology produces accura te r e s u l t s as the re i s noMaryland appel la te dec i s ion on t h i s i s sue .

The defense a l l eges the pro toco l i s new andnovel and the sc ience it i s based on i s not gene ra l lyaccepted within the s c i e n t i f i c community.

21


22/37

From:

If,III11j!I!I!I!I'ljIIIIIIIII

II

03/05/2012 13:36 #210 P.023/03

The drug recogn i t ion p ro toco l , whetheranalyzed under the Frye-Reed s tandard as a new ornovel s c i e n t i f i c technique or under Md. R. 5-702 asexper t witness tes t imony based on spec ia l i zedknowledge, i s i nadmiss ib le fo r the fo l lowing reasons:

1. The Frye-Reed StandardFrye v . United Sta tes , 293 F. 1013 (D.C.

Cir . 1923) s e t s fo r th the admiss ib i l i ty s tandardgoverning exper t tes t imony as to novel s c i e n t i f i ct heor i e s . The Court re fused to admit exper t t e s t imonyr e g ~ r d i n g the sys to l i c blood pressure deception t e s tof fe red to prove defendan t ' s t ru th fu lness and he ldt h a t in order to be admiss ib le the s c i e n t i f i cpr inc ip le or discovery must have "gained genera lacceptance in the p a r t i cu l a r f i e ld in which itbelongs . " Id . a t 1013-14. The Court of Appeals o fMq.ryland adopted the Frye s tandard in Reed v. S ta t e ,283 Md. 374 (1978) when the Court addressed thea d m is s ib i l i t y of exper t t es t imony in te rp re t ingvoicepr in t spect rograms t h a t compared the defendan t ' s

22


23/37

From:

II;III,IIIII,III'ilIII!Ji!ljI,.,!iI

.IIIu

II

I

Ilj

03/05/2012 13:37 #210 P.024/03

voice to te lephone c a l l s made by an a l leged r a p i s t .Id . a t 375-76. The Court held the tes t imony to beinadmiss ib le as the appl ica t ion of novel s c i e n t i f i ctechniques must be r e l i ab l e and genera l acceptancewithin the r e levan t s c i e n t i f i c community demons tra test h a t r e l i a b i l i t y . The Court found t h a t voicepr in tspect rograms were not genera l ly accepted within th er e levan t s c i e n t i f i c community and excluded theevidence . Id . a t 399.

Although no Maryland Court has addressedwhether the DRE Pro toco l i s a "sc ien t i f i cn t e s tsub jec t to a Frye-Reed chal lenge , a number of s t a t ecour t s have he ld t h a t the Frye t e s t i s not needed inDRE s i tua t ions a t a l l s ince the tes t imony beingof fe red i s no t based on new or novel s c i e n t i f i cpr inc ip le s . In S ta t e v. Klawi t ter , 518 N.W.2d 577(Minn. 1994), the Minnesota Supreme Court al lowed aDRE to t e s t i f y about h is observa t ions ;3.nd opinion asto whether a suspec t was under the in f luence o f drugs .The Court concluded t h a t the DRE pro toco l was not

23


24/37

From:

II

II

03/05/2012 13:37 #210 P.025/03

sub jec t to th e Frye t e s t because it " is not i t s e l f as c i e n t i f i c technique but ra the r a list of the th ings aprudent , t r a ined and exper ienced o f f i ce r shouldconsider before formula t ing or express ing an opin ionwhether the sub jec t i s under the in f luence of somecon t ro l l ed substance . " 3 Likewise , in Wil l iams v. S ta te ,710 So.2d 24 (Fla . Dis t . Ct. App. 1998), the Flor idaCourt of Appeals held t h a t most of the ORE t es t imonywas not s c i e n t i f i c , and thus a Frye hear ing wasunnecessary. The Court sa id , ' 'Object ive obse rva t ionsbased on observable s igns and condi t ions are notc l a s s i f i e d as ' s c i e n t i f i c ' and thus cons t i tu t eadmiss ib le tes t imony [wi thout a Frye hear ing] . " 4Simi la r ly , in Utah v. Layman, 953 P. 2d 782 (Utah.App. 1998) , th e Court permi t t ed a ORE to t e s t i fy as toh is opinion o f in tox ica t ion under the ra t iona le t h a tit was not s c i e n t i f i c evidence , bu t ra the r "ane x p e r t ' s persona l obse rva t ions and opinions based onh is or her educat ion, t r a in in g , and exper ience . ' '3 Although the Court held that the DEC Program was not a scientific technique, it did rule that components of theprogram were scientific in nature and as such subject to a Frye challenge.4 The Williams Court c


25/37


26/37

From:K

'III

I!II]IilIIIIIII'

IIrlI'III''IIII

I,II,

03/05/2012 13:37 #210 P.027/03

pro toco l i s accepted .by those people who unders tandwhat the program i s a re in a pos i t ion to eva lua te i t "and ignored the defendan t ' s two wi tnesses , a medica ldoctor who spec ia l i ze s in toxicology and a medicaldoctor who spec ia l i ze s ln t r ea t ing add ic t ion . Both ofthose witnesses t e s t i f i e d t ha t the s c i e n t i f i ccommunity had not accepted the pro toco l . (Id. a t 225-228)

A ll th ree o f Defendants ' th ree exper t s , Dr.Janofsky, Dr. Adams, and Dr. Genge, t e s t i f i e d t h a t theORE pro toco l and matr ix are not genera l ly accepted inthe f i e ld s of medicine inc luding s p ec i f i ca l l ypharmacology, neurology, ophthalmology and psych ia t ry .

In Oregon v. Aman, 194 Or. App. 463 (2004),the Court noted t h a t whi le it previously ru led the 12-s tep ORE protocol i s "va l id sc i en t i f i c evidence" ithad caut ioned t ha t "wi thou t the cor robora t ing evidenceof the ur ina lys i s ca l l ed fo r in the twe l f th s tep , theORE pro toco l cannot be cons idered comple te ." Id . a t247. The Court ru led t h a t "an incomple te ly

26


27/37

From:,,

03/05/2012 13:38 #210 P.028/03

admin is te red ORE pro toco l i s not , i t s e l f , admiss ib leas s c i e n t i f i c evidence .n Id . a t 249.

This ru l ing c l a r i f i e s the Sampson opinion lnt h a t the Court revea ls t h a t i t s previous admiss ion ofthe DRE opinion was e n t i r e ly based on the assumptiont h a t the in t roduct ion of s u f f i c i en t t o x i c o lo g i c a lconf i rmat ion would accompany any t es t imony regard ingthe o f f i c e r ' s observa t ions .

In Sta te v . Bai ty , 991 P.2d 1151 (Wash. 2000),the Supreme Court of Washington analyzed the DREevalua t ion under the Frye t e s t holding t h a t the DREevalua t ion taken as a whole presented an i s sue ofnovel s c i e n t i f i c evidence and met th e genera lacceptance s tandard . The Court found tha t the evidence

Il_ does have a s c i e n t i f i c aspect which " tends to c a s t aI s c i e n t i f i c aura about the DRE's t es t imony requ i r ing

i t s assessment under Frye .n The Court def ined there l evan t s c i e n t i f i c community as the National Highway

11 Tra f f i c Safe ty Adminis t ra t ion (NHTSA), theIn t e rna t iona l Assoc ia t ion of Chiefs of Pol ice (IACP),

27


28/37

From:

IIII"'II!IIIItII

II'IIIli'

IIi

IIII

03/05/2012 13:38 #210 P.029/03

th e American Bar Assoc ia t ion , and th e AmericanOptometric Assoc ia t ion had genera l ly accepted th e DREe va l ua t i on . ( Id . a t 126) The Court held t h a t th e DREevidence was admiss ib le s c i e n t i f i c evidence andp r o p ~ r l y qua l i f i ed DREs may t e s t i f y as exper t s .

However, the Cour t e r red in de f in ing th er e l e v a n t sc i en t i f i c community. NHTSA and the IACP a relong- t ime proponents of the DRE program and have aves ted i n t e r e s t in its acceptance and use . "Genera ls c i e n t i f i c recogni t ion may not be es t ab l i shed wi thou tth e t es t imony of d i s i n t e r e s t e d and exper t s whosel i ve l ihood i s not i n t im a te ly connected with theprogram." People v. Barbara, 225 N.W. 171, 180 (Mich.1977) . Although the members of th e AmericanOptometr ic Assoc ia t ion a re eye s p ec i a l i s t s and wouldunders t and c e r t a in s t e ps in the eva lua t ion , they a reno t phys ic ians .

In Schu l t z v . S ta t e , 106 Md. App. 145(1995), the Hor izon ta l Gaze Nystagmus ("HGN") t e s twas sc ru t in i zed under Frye/Reed a l though t h i s t e s t

28


29/37

From: 03/05/2012 13:38 #210 P.030/03(

II!I!:I!Jiii,IIII,IIII'jl,Ii!

which i s given as an i nd ica to r of a lcoho l abusehad been admi t ted many t imes in DWI cases . The Courtin deciding it would apply Frye/Reed to th e t e s t notedt h a t " [ i ]n determining whether a s c i e n t i f i c t echn ique

I' 2s 'new' ...l ong-s t and ing use by pol ice o f f i ce r s seemsII l e s s s i g n i f i can t a f ac to r than repea ted use , s tudy,I!hII t e s t ing , and conf i rmat ion by sc i en t i s t s or t r a inedIII t echnic iansn and made a f inding t h a t HGN passed

Frye/Reed fo r determining the presence of a l c o h o ~ . Id . 162. In Blackwel l v. S ta te , 408 Md. 677 (2009),

IIII

the Court he ld t h a t HGN i s a s c i e n t i f i c t e s t acceptedin Maryland fo r determining alcohol use . However,pol ice of f ice r s cannot use HGN to provide a spec i f i cblood a lcohol con ten t . See, Wilson v. S ta t e , 124 Md.App . . 543 (1999).

The DRE pro toco l i nc ludes f i e ld sobr i e ty t e s t ssuch as HGN, One-Leg Stand, and Walk and Turn, bu t noMaryland cour t has permi t t ed those t e s t s to be usedfo r proving drug impairment . The DRE pro toco l usessc i en t i f i c procedures and techniques and uses t h a t

29


30/37

From:

,, IILI!,I,"I

IJ

IIIII]Ii

IIIIIIIlr

IIII

03/05/2012 13:38 #210 P.031/03

data to determine the cause of the phys io log ica lsymptoms observed. These procedures and t echniquesinclude, i n t e r a l ia : blood pressure , pupi l r e a c t iv i tyto l i g h t , pupi l d i l a t ion and cons t r i c t ion , hor i zon ta land ve r t i c a l nystagmus, pulse r a te , body t empera ture ,and muscle tone .

Dr . . Adams t e s t i f i e d t h a t in the Shina r Study(Defense Exhib i t 4) DREs found HGN in ca tegor ie s wherea drug could not even cause HGN and in h is exper topinion t h a t demonstrates t h a t you "need a proper lyperformed t e s t and you need to unders tand nystagmusand ask these o ther e leven quest ions 5 to be able todetermine where t h a t nystagmus came f rom." (Tr.9/29/10 a t 57-58)

Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t v i t a l s igns a renot something the medical community uses to show drugimpairment and he knows o f no one in the medica l f i e ldt h a t does use v i t a l s igns as an i nd ica to r . (9 /27 /10a t 51) He fu r the r t e s t i f i e d t h a t " i t would be

' See eleven questions the examiner must consider before diagnosing nystagmus at p. 15 of this MemorandlimOpinion and Order.

30


31/37

From:t

III'IIliIIjjIIli1iIII'dliI'I

J,

IIII

I.III'

03/05/2012 13:39 #210 P.032/03

malprac t ice fo r a phys ic ian to r e ly on c l i n i c a l dataalone ..you cannot make a diagnosis of impairment orin tox ica t ion based on c l i n i ca l data alone-you musthave conf i rmatory t e s t i n g . " (Tr. 9/23/10 a t 227)

The Nat iona l Academies of Science in 2009publ i shed i t s f indings on var ious aspec ts of fo rens icsc ience in St reng then ing Forensic Science in theUnited Sta tes : A Path Forwardr Nat ional ResearchCounci l of th e Nat ional Academies, 2009 (he rea f te r"NAS Repor tn) . The NAS repor t found t h a t " the re i s anotable dearth of peer - reviewed, publ i shed s tud ieSes tab l i sh ing the s c i e n t i f i c bas i s and v a l i d i t y of manyfo rens ic methods. ( I d . a t 8) The NAS repor t conta ined the fo l lowing recommendation:

The degree o f sc ience in a fo rens icsc ience method may have an impor tan tbear ing on the r e l i a b i l i t y of forens icevidence in c r imina l cases . There aretwo very impor tan t quest ions t h a t shouldunder l ie t he l aw 's admission o f andre l iance upon fo rens ic evidence incr iminal t r i a l s : (1) the ex ten t towhich a p a r t i cu l a r fo rens ic d isc ip l inei s founded on a r e l i ab le s c i e n t i f i cmethodology t h a t gives it the capac i tyto accura te ly analyze evidence and

31


32/37

From:i:

.. i!III,,,,,,ij!!,,'IllliIII"ljI,IIIIIIIII

'II1/IIIIIIIIII\II

I'I'I

IIIII

III

03/05/2012 13:39 #210 P.033/03

r epor t f indings , and (2) the ex ten tto which p r ac t i t i o n e r s in a p a r t i c u l a rforens ic d i sc ip l ine re ly on humani n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t could be t a in ted byer ro r , the t h r ea t of bia s , or theabsence of sound opera t iona l proceduresand robust performance s tandards . Thesequest ions a re s ig n i f i c an t . The goa l o flaw enforcement act ions is to iden t i fythose who have committed crimes and toprevent th e cr imina l ju s t i c e system fromerroneous ly conv ic t ing th e innocent . Soit matters a grea t dea l whether an exper tis su f f i c i e n t l y re l i ab l e to mer i t a f a c tf inder ' s re l iance on th e truth tha t itpurports to support .

Id . a t 87 (Emphasis supp l ied) .Dr. Janofsky t e s t i f i e d t h a t peer reviewed and

publ i shed l i t e r a t u r e must be performed before atechnique l i ke the DRE would be accepted among th emedical and s c i e n t i f i c communities. He t e s t i f i e d t h a tth e Heishman Study 1, Heishman Study 2, th e ShinarStudy and the Schectman Study represent the ex ten t o fthe peer reviewed and publ i shed l i t e r a t u r e t h a t e x i s t son the sub jec t of the DRE pro toco l . He t e s t i f i e d t h a tthese s tud ie s did conta in the necessary informat ionfo r sp e c i f i c i t y and se n s i t i v i t y r a t i o s and wereconducted in a double-bl ind fashion. He fu r the r

32


33/37

From:

ljII"ii"II,I!IiII,,I!,,i'IIIi!'II,I'il

I,

I'ljI

III'

I

03/05/2012 13:39 #210 P.034/03

t e s t i f i e d t h a t the Heishman, Shinar and Schectmans tud ie s conclus ively show t h a t the ORE, when t e s t edand looked at appropr ia te ly , i s not an accura tepred ic to r of th e presence of drugs and the fours tud ie s conclus ively show t h a t a pol ice o f f i c e r ' spredic t ions a re e i th e r no b e t t e r than chance or may bes l i g h t l y b e t t e r than chance or worse than chance.(Tr. 9/23/10 a t 212) Dr. Janofsky notedhe could f ind no s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e whichcor re l a t e s nystagmus, pup i l s ize , r eac t ion to l i g h t ,l ack of convergence, pulse r a te , blood pressure , orbody temperature (a l l separa te components of the ORE)with dr iv ing impairment while in tox ica ted on drugs .(Dr. Janofsky Report , p . 7)

Dr. Citek acknowledged t h a t conf i rmat ion l sa form of t unne l vis ion when someone seeks outevidence to confirm t h e i r hypothes is and t h a t in thenon-peer reviewed s tud ie s the of f ice r s were to ld thedrug a person took and as a r e s u l t " i t i s l i ke ly t h a t

33


34/37

From:

"III!IIifIIIIli

ljIIIIIIlliiIIi!II,IIII

I'III'!

03/05/2012 13:39 #210 P.035/03

they wil l reach the r e su l t in terms of what they a reac tua l ly impaired by ." (Tr. 9/20/10 a t 165-66)

Under the Frye-Reed s tandard th e drugrecogni t ion pro toco l i s a new and novel t echn iquebecause it purpor t s to crea te a pro toco l fo r p o l i c eof f i ce r s to render a medical diagnos i s . When there levan t s c i e n t i f i c community i s proper ly def ined toinc lude d i s in t e r e s t ed medical profess iona l s it i sc l e a r t h a t th e drug recogn i t ion p ro toco l i s notgenera l ly accepted as re l i ab le .

2 . Md. R. 5-7 0 2Expert tes t imony di scuss ing novel s c i e n t i f i c

theor ie s must meet the Frye/Reed s tandard in add i t ionto the Md. R. 5-702 requirements to be admiss ib le .Expert tes t imony address ing n o n ~ n o v e l s c i e n t i f i cevidence , however, must only meet the requirements ofMd. R. 5-702. United S ta t e s v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d530, 547-48 (D. Md. 2002) (Under Maryland evidence law,the Frye/Reed t e s t app l i e s only to in t roduc t ion of

34


35/37

From: 03/05/2012 13:40 #210 P.036/03

[novel] s c i e n t i f i c evidence , and Rule 5-702 alonecovers a l l othe r types of exper t opinion t es t imony.)

Md. R. 5-702 provides:Exper t tes t imony may be admit ted inform of an opinion or otherwise ifthe cour t determines t h a t the tes t imonywi l l a s s i s t the t r i e r of f ac t tounders tand th e evidence or to determinea f ac t in i s sue . In making t h a tdeterm inat ion , the cour t s h a l l determine(1) whether the witness i s qua l i f i edas an expe r t by knowledge, s k i l l ,exper ience , t r a in ing , or educa t ion , (2)the appropr ia teness of the exper ttes t imony on the p a r t i cu l a r sub jec t ,and (3) whether a s u f f i c i en t f a c tu a lbas i s e x i s t s to suppor t the exper tt e s t imony . 6

Applying Md. R. 5-702 to the proposed DREtes t imony, the Court f inds t h a t a drug recogn i t ion

proba t ive value of the evidence i s s u b s t an t i a l l youtweighed by i t s p r e ju d i c i a l e f f e c t .

6 Jn Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), held that the Frye standard had. beensuperseded by Federal Rule ofEvidence 702. See also Kumho Tire Company, Ltd .v . Carmichael, 526 US 137(1999). However, when the Maryland Rules of Evidence were drafted, the Committee specifically stated thatMaryland Rule 5-702, although patterned on the Federal Rule, was not intended to overrule Reed v. State, 283 Md374 and the Frye. Reed standard is followed in Maryland to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence.

35


36/37

From:

II

03/05/2012 13:40 #210 P.037/03

IV. Conclus ionBased upon th e Cour t ' s review of ten days of

exper t tes t imony, arguments of counsel , case law,exh ib i t s , and the wri t t en c los ings o f counsel , theCourt makes the fol lowing:

Findings o f FactThe DRE Protocol f a i l s to produce an accura te andr e l i ab l e determinat ion of whether a suspec t i simpaired by drugs and. by what spec i f i c drug he i simpaired.The DRE t r a in ing p o l i c e of f ice r s rece ive does notenable OREs to accura te ly observe the s igns andsymptoms of drug impairment , the re fo re , po l i ceof f ice r s are not ab le to reach accura te and r e l i a b l econclus ions regard ing what drug may be causingimpairment .

Conclus ions o f LawThe Sta te f a i l ed to prove by a preponderance o f th eevidence t ha t the drug eva lua t ion and. c l a s s i f i c a t i o nprogram i s no t new o r novel and i s gene ra l ly accepted

- h ~ . ~ ~ 't d th flL _j_n c:rre- S C 5 : . . - e n - ~ _ - 1 . . . L l C - COITiffiUfi:l y an- 1 - e r e .... Q.@,.sub jec t to ana lys i s under Frye v . United S ta t e sReed v. S ta te .

i t. ivsand

The drug eva lua t ion and c lass i f i ca t ion program doesnot survive a Frye/Reed chal lenge because it i s no tgenera l ly ac tep ted as va l id and r e l i a b l e in ther e levan t s c i e n t i f i c community which i nc ludespharmacolo.gists , neuro log i s t s , opthamolog is t s ,t ox ico log i s t s , behav io ra l research psycho log is t s ,fo rens ic sp e c i a l i s t s and medical doctors .

36


37/37

From:L

/I

I

03/05/2012 13:40 #210 P.038/03

For the reasons se t for th above, the C o ~ r t hereby grants Defendants ' Motion To Exclude TheDrug Recognit ion Exper t Protocol and DrugRecognit ion Expert Opinion.

Order

I t i s , by the Circu i t Court fo r Carro l l.cfhCounty, t h i s day of March, 2012,

ORDERED, t ha t Defendants ' Motion ToExclude The Drug Recogni t ion Expert Protocol andDrug Recognit ion Exper t Opinion be, and ithereby i s , gran ted .

/ljtU;eL /)]JUDG"E i"JTCHAE't l9I.

ENTERED MAR - 5 2012

Documents

DREOrderExcludingDREMarylandMarch52012