Document Category: Drug Recognition Expert
| Title | Content | Date Filed | Jurisdiction | Categories | Link | hf:doc_author | hf:doc_categories |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Exclude Police Testimony About How Drug Deals Happen, the Behavior of Drug Traffickers, Quantities of Drugs that Indicate Distribution, and the Relationship Between Firearms and Drug Trafficking | This motion relies on the Federal Rules of Evidence to argue for exclusion of police testimony about the behavior of drug traffickers. Pages 13-14 rely on social science to argue that users of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine consume large quantities of each of those drugs daily to support their habit such that courts cannot infer distribution from larger amounts. Pages 15-16 collect national data to refute the suggestion that drug traffickers typically possess firearms. | May 20, 2024 | National, Washington | 403, 4th Amendment, Drug Recognition Expert, Evidence, Expert Testimony, Profiling Evidence, Sentencing, Testimony about Drugs, Witnesses | national washington | 403 4th-amendment dre evidence expert-testimony profiling-evidence sentencing testimony-about-drugs witnesses forensics | |
| Amicus Brief to Exclude Drug Recognition Expert | Pages 1-4 discuss the history and development of the DRE program; pages 6-10 explain how the DRE test fails Rule of Evidence 702 because it does not assist the trier of fact to understand a fact in issue and the officers who testify about it are not qualified in the relevant field of knowledge; and pages 11-26 explain why the DRE protocol fails each of the five Daubert factors. | April 6, 2022 | Michigan, National | Drug Recognition Expert, Evidence, Expert Testimony, Forensics, Police, Testimony about Drugs, Witnesses | michigan national | dre evidence expert-testimony forensics police testimony-about-drugs witnesses |