Civil Rights
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
q2K BHP
Black History Portal
THE BHP WIRE —
HIDDEN TRUTHS
What's New!
Explore the people, places, events, achievements, struggles and stories that shaped our journey.
Movements, leaders, victories and the continuing fight for equality.
Innovation, patents, science, technology and world-changing contributions.
Pioneers, champions, Negro Leagues, records, activism and excellence.
Meet the people whose lives, choices and achievements shaped the journey.
Black towns, communities, institutions and places where history happened.
Moments that changed communities, movements, institutions and the nation.
Mansa Musa was the ruler of the Mali Empire in West Africa. Details recorded here should be sourced; unknown information is left blank.
MORE →Reflects the personal views, recollections, and perspective of the author, Mike Davis.
This is a personal recollection on the Move fire on May 13, 1985
 | The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (November 2013) |
A Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is a law enforcement officer trained in an unproven method to identify people whose driving is impaired by drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. All DREs follow the same 12 step procedure called a Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE), to purportedly determine which category of drugs is causing the driver to be impaired.[1]
If a DRE determines that a driver was too impaired to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, they will look for indications of the drugs suspected, by the common perceivable effects the drugs have on the human body.[2] There are seven categories of classifications a DRE is looking for, including; central nervous system depressants, CNS stimulants, dissociative anesthetics, cannabis, hallucinogens, inhalants, and narcotic analgesics.[2]
DREs often testify in court, where the term "expert" has important legal implications. The Traffic Resource for Judges [3] describes different approaches taken by state courts in how DRE evidence is admitted.
Different jurisdictions take a variety of approaches to DRE testimony. Some jurisdictions hold DRE protocol and evidence to be scientific evidence; some do not. Some jurisdictions permit DRE testimony to be introduced as expert testimony (usually under Rule of Evidence 702 or the equivalent in that state), while some jurisdiction require DRE testimony to be introduced as non-expert opinion testimony. Some jurisdictions analyze DRE testimony through the lens of Daubert, while other jurisdictions use the Frye analysis.
The acronym 'DRE' has been used to refer not just to the DRE officers, but also to the examination they perform, the "Drug Recognition Examination", or "Drug Recognition Evaluation." The confluence of acronyms leads to confusion, and the IACP now calls the evaluation done by DRE officers the "Drug Influence Evaluation", DIE.
DREs were developed by police officers from the Los Angeles Police Department in the early 1970s. The officers' drug recognition methods were officially recognized by the LAPD management in 1979, and adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the early 1980s.
Certification is issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).[4] To remain certified and in good standing, DREs must track their evaluations and enter the results into an online database.
DRE training and certification standards are defined by the International Association of Chiefs of Police [5] Training is available only to "a person ... in the employ and under the direct control of [2] a public criminal justice agency involved in the enforcement of criminal or traffic safety laws[1] or an institution involved in providing training services to officers of law enforcement agencies.".[6] IACP standards require DREs training to be done using an official Student Manual. This manual.[7] is widely cited in court as defining standards for the performance of a Drug Influence Evaluation.
A DIE involves the following 12 steps[8]
Claims regarding the effectiveness of DREs have not been supported by research.[9] These claims are critical to the admission of DRE expert testimony in criminal trials.
The DRE Student Manual identifies three scientific studies as being those that validate DRE testing.[10] These studies are: Bigelow 1985 (a.k.a. the Johns Hopkins study);[11] Compton 1986 (a.k.a. the LAPD-173 study);[12] and Adler 1994 (a.k.a. the Arizona DRE Validation Study).[13] However, all three of these studies have been shown to have major methodological flaws.[9]
![[icon]](viewer.php?source=wikipedia&q=File%3AWiki%20letter%20w%20cropped.svg&result=0#selected-result){kind=small} | This section needs expansion with: jurisdictions where it has been ruled inadmissible. You can help by adding missing information. (December 2021) |
In 2017, the Supreme Court of Canada held that "a DRE is a 'drug recognition expert', certified as such for the purposes of the 12 step evaluation. By reason of his training and experience, a DRE undoubtedly possesses expertise on determining drug impairment that is outside the experience and knowledge of the trier of fact. He is thus an expert for the purpose of applying the 12 step evaluation and determining whether that evaluation indicates drug impairment. His expertise has been conclusively and irrebuttably established by Parliament. Knowledge of the underlying science is not a precondition to the admissibility of a DRE’s opinion."[14]
This mirrors US case law where testimony of police officers regarding alcohol impairment is admitted in court without the need for the officer to be an expert in, or to testify to, the underlying sciences of the sobriety tests they are trained to administer.
On May 2, 2012, activists with Occupy Minneapolis released a documentary video called MK Occupy Minnesota.[15] The video documents testimony from participants that police officers in Minneapolis gave them cannabis as part of a Drug Recognition Expert program.[16][17]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
Source: Wikipedia. Article content is retrieved live through the MediaWiki API.
A Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) is a law enforcement officer trained in an unproven method to identify people whose driving is impaired by drugs other than, or in addition to, alcohol. All DREs follow the same 12 step procedure called a Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE), to purportedly determine which category of drugs is causing the driver to be impaired. If a DRE determines that a driver was too impaired to operate a vehicle in a safe manner, they will look for indications of the drugs suspected, by the common perceivable effects the drugs have on the human body. There are seven categories of classifications a DRE is looking for, including; central nervous system depressants, CNS stimulants, dissociative anesthetics, cannabis, hallucinogens, inhalants, and narcotic analgesics. DREs often testify in court, where the term "expert" has important legal implications. The Traffic Resource for Judges describes different approaches taken by state courts in how DRE evidence is admitted. Different jurisdictions take a variety of approaches to DRE testimony. Some jurisdictions hold DRE protocol and evidence to be scientific evidence; some do not. Some jurisdictions permit DRE testimony to be introduced as expert testimony (usually under Rule of Evidence 702 or the equivalent in that state), while some jurisdiction require DRE testimony to be introduced as non-expert opinion testimony. Some jurisdictions analyze DRE testimony through the lens of Daubert, while other jurisdictions use the Frye analysis. The acronym 'DRE' has been used to refer not just to the DRE officers, but also to the examination they perform, the "Drug Recognition Examination", or "Drug Recognition Evaluation." The confluence of acronyms leads to confusion, and the IACP now calls the evaluation done by DRE officers the "Drug Influence Evaluation", DIE. DREs were developed by police officers from the Los Angeles Police Department in the early 1970s. The officers' drug recognition methods were officially recognized by the LAPD management in 1979, and adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the early 1980s. Certification is issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). To remain certified and in good standing, DREs must track their evaluations and enter the results into an online database.
In United States federal law, the Daubert standard ( DAW-bərt) is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witness testimony. A party may raise a Daubert motion, a special motion in limine raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of unqualified evidence to the jury. The Daubert trilogy are the three United States Supreme Court cases that articulated the Daubert standard: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), which held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not incorporate the Frye standard as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony, but that the rule incorporated a flexible reliability standard instead; General Electric Co. v. Joiner (1997), which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and that person's conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony; Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999), which held that the judge's gatekeeping function identified in Daubert applies to all expert testimony, including that which is non-scientific. Important appellate-level opinions that clarify the standard include Judge Alex Kozinski's opinion in Daubert on remand, and Judge Edward Becker's opinion.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ( DAW-bərt), 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts. In Daubert, the Court held that the enactment of the Federal Rules of Evidence implicitly overturned the Frye standard; the standard that the Court articulated is referred to as the Daubert standard.
Analysis Group, Inc. (AG), founded in 1981 by economists Bruce E. Stangle and Michael F. Koehn, is an economic consulting firm with offices in the United States, Canada, and other international locations. It provides economic, financial, and strategic analysis and expert testimony to law firms, corporations, and government agencies.
Before the 1921 destruction of Tulsa’s Greenwood District, Black residents had created a remarkable center of business and community life. The district included stores, professional offices, entertainment venues and homes owned by Black citizens. Understanding Greenwood means learning what was built—not only what was burned.
MORE →Mae Jemison, aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour in 1992.
