Opinion ID: 1846967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: General Acceptance in Scientific Community

Text: Daly also argues that the DRE protocol is not generally accepted in the scientific community. To support this argument, Daly contends that because the DRE protocol is a technique based upon the human body's reaction to drugs, the relevant scientific community must include Pharmacologists, Neurologists, Toxicologists, Behavioral Research Psychologists, Forensic Specialists, and Medical Doctors concerned with the recognition of alcohol and drug intoxication. [27] And Daly suggests that the DRE protocol as a whole is the single theory or technique that must be generally accepted. But the DRE protocol, while based in scientific principles, is a program designed to meet the specific needs of law enforcement. The medical community would rely on toxicological testing, because medical diagnosis and treatment require neither evaluation of a patient's impairment at a particular time nor probable cause to perform a chemical test. And scientists interested in the effects of drugs on the human body would test those effects under controlled conditions, rather than collecting research subjects out of motor vehicles. In other words, the DRE program as a whole cannot be evaluated based on whether it is used in the scientific community, because it is uniquely tailored to the exigencies of law enforcement. Instead, the relevant question is whether the tests that make up the protocol are generally accepted. In that regard, Zuk testified that each step in the DRE protocol reflected techniques that were accepted in the medical community for diagnostic purposes and were either consistent with the medical community's method of performing those examinations of based on a sound understanding of the central nervous system. And as previously noted, the entire protocol is based on the generally accepted principle that drugs affect vital signs and change the physiology of the body. Nonetheless, Daly takes issue with several of the particular components of the DRE protocol. He argues, for instance, that nystagmus testing is an unreliable gauge of a suspect's impairment. He argues that several of the physical sobriety tests have not been proved reliable. And he takes particular issue with the examination of a suspect's mouth and nose for evidence of drug use. We have, however, previously held that nystagmus testing is generally accepted in the relevant scientific community as an indicator of impairment, although that result standing alone is insufficient to support a conviction for DUI. [28] It is also within the expertise of a veteran police officer to have observed that repeated drug use can have physical manifestations such as scarring or discoloration around the mouth. And the variables that could account for anomalous results on any one aspect of the DRE examination are precisely why the protocol existsto promote a systematic approach that considers a number of different factors. [29] The issue is not whether any single observation is reliable enough to be dispositiveinstead, it is whether an opinion based upon all of the relevant observations is reliable enough to be admissible. And, as discussed above, the scientific literature supports the conclusion that it is. In sum, we conclude that the county court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the DRE protocol was a sufficiently valid methodology to support Hilger's opinion testimony.