Category: DUID

Drug OUI Reciprocity: Marijuana, Edibles, and Prescription Cases Across MA, NH, and ME

A lot of drivers still think drunk driving law is mainly about alcohol. In Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine, that is simply not true. All three states allow impaired-driving cases based on drugs as well as alcohol. That includes marijuana, prescription medication, over-the-counter medication, and combinations of substances that prosecutors say impaired your ability to drive safely.

Massachusetts law expressly covers operating under the influence of marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants, or stimulant substances. New Hampshire’s DWI law is also broad, reaching controlled drugs, prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and other natural or synthetic chemicals that impair driving. Maine likewise treats OUI as an alcohol-or-drugs offense, and its administrative and court consequences can be severe.

That matters for one big reason: reciprocity is not limited to beer-and-breath-test cases. If a Massachusetts driver is charged out of state in a drug-impaired driving case, the fact that no alcohol was involved does not make the case safe from Massachusetts consequences. The Massachusetts RMV’s own guidance makes clear that out-of-state offenses related to operating under the influence of alcohol or drugs can lead to Massachusetts suspension or revocation.

Drug cases also create a different kind of proof problem. There is often no neat number that ends the debate the way some people assume a breath test does in an alcohol case. Instead, the state may build the case from officer observations, statements, field sobriety tests, body camera footage, blood results, prescription records, or a Drug Recognition Expert opinion. That can make these cases both vulnerable and dangerous at the same time.

Many people hurt themselves by saying, ‘But it was prescribed,’ or ‘It was legal weed,’ or ‘I only had an edible last night.’ Legality of the substance is not the test. The issue is whether the prosecution can prove impairment at the time of operation. Sometimes the state overreaches badly. Sometimes the driver’s own statements fill in the gaps for the government.

Interstate drug OUI cases are especially tricky because the science issues, the proof issues, and the home-state record consequences all collide. A quick plea may feel tempting when the evidence looks confusing. But confusing evidence often means there is room to fight. It does not mean you should surrender.

Bowser Law handles drug and alcohol impaired-driving matters across Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine with a focus on how the case will be treated in the real world, not just in the courtroom that happens to be handling the charge. If you are a Massachusetts driver charged out of state after marijuana, an edible, a prescription medication, or a mix of substances, the right defense starts with understanding how all three systems can interact.

Are the Police Qualified to Charge you with DUI Drugs using the DRE Protocol?

With the legalization of recreational marijuana in New England, arrests for DUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs) have gone up recently. However, there are some fundamental flaws in DUID enforcement which need to be discussed.

The Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) Protocol is Not Scientifically Proven

In a ruling issued on March 31, Judge Jennifer Tyne of Central Berkshire District Court called into question the validity of the DRE Protocol. The DRE protocol has been adopted by all 50 states and is used to evaluate whether or not a driver is under the influence of certain drugs. After a training program, law enforcement officers can be certified as Drug Recognition Experts.

The Court, however, ruled that DREs were not experts and that the training program lacked scientific validity. When the state was challenged to provide evidence that the training program was valid:

The state did not provide any evidence that the content of that training was accepted by the scientific community or was scientifically sound in the first place.

The court took into account three law enforcement studies, from 1985, 1986 and 1994, that formed the basis for the body of knowledge and the methodology of Polidoro’s training.

The court found faults in those methodologies and reporting in all three studies and determined that they were not a relevant or reliable source for the officer’s training.

Commenting on the proficiency of the DREs, Judge Tyne said:

As law enforcement has embraced these studies as the basis for their trainings, the Court finds that, `proficient,’ as used by law enforcement means a 43% to 49% accuracy rate for identifying those subjects with no drugs in their systems. The Court does not find this to be reliable, let alone proficient.

Based on the evidence presented at this hearing, the Court finds that the body of knowledge, the principles and the methods that the officer was instructed on are not reliable predictors of whether an individual is under the influence of certain narcotics.

You can read more about the Central Berkshire District Court ruling at: Judge tosses evidence in OUI stop by drug recognition expert.

The DRE protocol has been challenged in many states and a number of courts have also ruled it as lacking scientific backing and evidence. In 2012 case: State of Maryland v. Charles David Brightful, et al, No. K-10-04-259, Circuit Court for Carroll County, MD, the Court held:

Applying Md. R. 5-702 to the proposed DRE testimony, the Court finds that a drug recognition expert is not sufficiently qualified to render an opinion, that the testimony is not relevant, and the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

In that case, one of the expert witnesses, a psychiatrist, testified:

“I have got to tell you, your Honor, DRE is something that’s not foremost in the mind of those of us who take care of substance abusers, clinically or forensically. People are aware of it. But it’s… no one I know of, no physician I know of, would even consider using this matrix or the – even pieces of it in determining either whether someone was impaired on drugs or even more ridiculously to tell which specific drug category. It’s ridiculous. I can’t emphasize that enough.

How do these rulings affect people who were arrested for DUID?

In many cases, evidence can be successfully challenged and even thrown out by the court. DUID cases are complicated to defend because there is a lot of science involved which is above the heads of most attorneys. However, the right attorney can make it very difficult for the state to prove impairment.

Attorney Mike Bowser has never lost a DUI marijuana case. Ever.

If you have been arrested for DUID, whether it was for marijuana, prescription medication, or other drugs, it is in your best interest to find an attorney who is able to challenge the state based on science. Forensic science is not taught at law schools and not every attorney is qualified to challenge these cases.

Attorney Mike Bowser is one of the few attorneys in New England who is a certified as a DUI defense specialist. He has attended the renowned Forensic Chromatography course at Axion Labs and is widely respected for his professionalism and knowledge of science and law. Call 888-414-9202 today for your free case consultation.