Opinion ID: 1846967
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Persuasiveness of Supporting Studies/Risk of Error

Text: Daly makes several arguments with respect to the reliability of the DRE protocol. His primary argument seems to be that the studies mentioned above were not peer reviewed and were methodologically flawed. Daly contends that other studies, suggesting that the DRE protocol is less reliable, were peer reviewed and used more sound methodology. To begin with, we note that although Daly attacks the credibility of the literature supporting the reliability of the DRE protocol, he cannot contest its existence. [11] And we have observed that a court performing a Daubert/Schafersman inquiry should not require absolute certainty. [12] Instead, a trial court should admit expert testimony if there are good grounds for the expert's conclusion, even if there could possibly be better grounds for some alternative conclusion. [13] And as other courts have noted, the research validating the DRE protocol has been carefully scrutinized at scientific conferences, conventions, workshops, and other forums for the exchange of ideas among those interested in the physiological consequences of drug use. [14] The reason that peer-reviewed publication is valuable is that it places research in the public domain and permits evaluation and criticism. Although not always published in a peer-reviewed journal per se, DRE research has been the subject of considerable scientific scrutiny. [15] As the court in U.S. v. Everett [16] observed, These writings began in the ate 1970's and have continued to the present. The use of the protocol and its various elements has certainly not been kept a secret nor is there evidence that its proponents have attempted to avoid the limelight. Nor are the studies that Daly depends upon as dispositive as he asserts. The feature of those studies upon which he reliestheir blind designhas been criticized by others as a fundamental flaw in their methodology. [17] Daly refers us primarily to studies conducted by Stephen J. Heishman and his colleagues from 1996 to 1998. [18] Daly suggests that the Heishman studies indicated at best a 51-percent success rate for DRE accuracy and indicated a success rate of only 44 percent when alcohol-only decisions were excluded. [19] But in order to make those studies blind, the DRE protocol was used incompletely. The DRE examiners did not question subjects about recent drug use, nor did they interrogate the subjects to solicit admissions about drug use. Nor was evidence from the arrest available. This means that the blind studies could not realistically predict the scientific reliability of the DRE program in the field because they examined an abbreviated evaluation that is different from the standardized protocol that is actually used. [20] As the Everett court observed, this defies the centuries old practice of physicians to take a history of patients in connection with a physical examination. [21] To remove that aspect of the protocol does not provide an accurate test of the protocol itself. Simply put, the fact that suspects may admit to using drugs or may have drug paraphernalia on their persons does not make a protocol that includes those facts less reliable as a diagnostic tool. And more to the point, when the issue is the reliability of the complete DRE protocol as a diagnostic tool for law enforcement officers in the field, the county court did not abuse its discretion in being more persuaded by studies that actually measured the reliability of the complete protocol under field conditions. We also note that even the 1998 Heishman study concluded that the DRE protocol is a valid test to identify recent drug use. [22] That study also found that when DRE evaluations were inconsistent with toxicological testing, false negatives were substantially more likely than false positives, including with respect to marijuana use. [23] And even using an incomplete protocol, DREs are able to detect drug-induced impairment in general, even when they have difficulty discriminating between various drugs. [24] In other words, to the extent the Heishman studies indicate a higher rate of error than the studies relied upon by the State, that risk is mitigated by the fact that an erroneous DRE evaluation will probably err on the side of the suspect. [25] The risk of a false positive is low. Any risk is mitigated further by the fact that identifying the specific drug that caused a driver's impairment is inessentialthe DUI statute only requires proof that the defendant was under the influence of any drug and does not require the drug to be identified by the arresting officer. [26] And finally, we note that the final step in the DRE protocol is the use of chemical testing to confirm the officer's evaluation. In the end, it was not an abuse of discretion to conclude that the available scientific literature supported the admission of DRE-based testimony.