DOCSLIB.ORG

Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs TRANSPORTATION Number E-C020, September 2000 RESEARCH ISSN 0097-8515 E-CIRCULAR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs TRANSPORTATION Number E-C020, September 2000 RESEARCH ISSN 0097-8515 E-CIRCULAR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH E-CIRCULAR Number E-C020 September 2000 Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs TRANSPORTATION Number E-C020, September 2000 RESEARCH ISSN 0097-8515 E-CIRCULAR Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs COMMITTEE ON ALCOHOL, OTHER DRUGS, AND TRANSPORTATION Allan F. Williams, Chair Marcelline Burns Hans Laurell Stephen M. Simon Carol P. Council Susan E. Martin Herbert M. Simpson James Fell J. J. McLean Carl A. Soderstrom Susan A. Ferguson Judy Z. Meade Barry M. Sweedler Robert D. Foss Herbert Moskowitz Evelyn Vingilis James H. Hedlund Wolf-Ruediger Nickel Robert B. Voas Susan B. Herbel Raymond C. Peck J. Michael Walsh Ralph Hingson David F. Preusser Elisabeth N. Wells-Parker Brian A. Jonah Jean T. Shope Richard F. Pain, TRB Staff Representative Robert Hilterbrand, TRB Senior Program Assistant Subscriber categories Transportation Research Board IIA highway and facility design National Research Council 4B safety and human performance 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW nationalacademies.org/trb Washington, DC 20418 The Transportation Research Board is a unit of the National Research Council, which is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The research council provides independent advice on scientific and technical matters under a congressional charter granted to the National Academy of Sciences, a private, nonprofit institution dedicated to the advancement of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. The Transportation Research Board is distributing this Circular to make the information contained herein available for use by individual practitioners in state and local transportation agencies, researchers in academic institutions, and other members of the transportation research community. The information in this Circular was taken directly from the submissions of the authors. This document is not a report of the National Research Council or of the National Academy of Sciences. FOREWORD This TRB circular includes the papers and discussion from a midyear 1998 meeting and workshop organized by the Committee on Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation (A3B10). The conference chair and organizer was Allan F. Williams. James H. Hedlund prepared this circular. In the workshop, the presentation of one or more discussion papers, or comments, followed each paper presentation. Then questions and answers and a general discussion period provided all participants the opportunity to explore the topic further and express opinions on research or program needs, ideas, or opportunities. CONTENTS Workshop Introduction: ISSUES AND METHODS IN THE DETECTION OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS . A-1 Allan F. Williams Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Robert B. Voas Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Susan A. Ferguson Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Workshop Summary: WHAT’S NEEDED TO IMPROVE POLICE DETECTION OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS IN DRIVERS . B-1 James Hedlund Highway Safety North LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO DETECTION . C-1 Michele Fields Insurance Institute for Highway Safety INCREASING THE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXAMINE IMPAIRED DRIVERS. D-1 Jack W. Stuster Anacapa Sciences, Inc. Comments on “Increasing the Opportunities to Examine Impaired Drivers” . D-16 Douglas J. Beirness Traffic Injury Research Foundation Comments on “Increasing the Opportunities to Examine Impaired Drivers” . D-19 Barry M. Sweedler National Transportation Safety Board Comments on “Increasing the Opportunities to Examine Impaired Drivers” . D-22 James C. Fell National Highway Traffic Safety Administration IDENTIFICATION OF ALCOHOL IMPAIRMENT ON INITIAL INTERVIEW . E-1 David F. Preusser Preusser Research Group, Inc. Comments on “Identification of Alcohol Impairment on Initial Interview” . E-8 Bill Tower Maryland State Police Department Comments on “Identification of Alcohol Impairment on Initial Interview” . E-11 Susan A. Ferguson Insurance Institute for Highway Safety IDENTIFICATION OF IMPAIRMENT OUTSIDE THE VEHICLE: FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS. F-1 Marcelline M. Burns Southern California Research Institute Comments on “Identification of Impairment Outside the Vehicle” . F-13 Robert B. Voas Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Comments on “Identification of Impairment Outside the Vehicle” . F-20 James Hedlund Highway Safety North EVIDENCE OF ALCOHOL AND DRUG IMPAIRMENT OBTAINED AFTER ARREST . G-1 Steve Simon University of Minnesota Comments on “Evidence of Alcohol and Drug Impairment Obtained After Arrest” . G-15 Herbert A. Moskowitz Southern California Research Institute Comments on “Evidence of Alcohol and Drug Impairment Obtained After Arrest” . G-19 Michele Fields Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ISSUES IN THE DETECTION OF DRUGS OTHER THAN ALCOHOL . H-1 J. Michael Walsh The Walsh Group, P.A. Comments on “Issues in the Detection of Drugs Other Than Alcohol” . H-11 Han de Gier University of Utrecht Comments on “Issues in the Detection of Drugs Other Than Alcohol” . H-14 Richard P. Compton National Highway Traffic Safety Administration PROSECUTING AND ADJUDICATING DWI DETECTION EVIDENCE . I-1 Joel A. Watne State of Minnesota Comments on “Prosecuting and Adjudicating DWI Detection Evidence” . I-25 Kathryn Stewart Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Comments on “Prosecuting and Adjudicating DWI Detection Evidence” . I-27 William G. Sleva Lawrence Superior Court II WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs ALLAN F. WILLIAMS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ROBERT B. VOAS Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation SUSAN A. FERGUSON Insurance Institute for Highway Safety INTRODUCTION The central question of this workshop is: How can it reliably be established that a person has consumed alcohol and/or other drugs in amounts that are illegal and/or may cause harm to that person or others? Many people think of this as a relatively easy task, conjuring up images of the “falling down drunk,” although even this obvious display may be something else, for example, diabetic shock. The reality is that even when people have high blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) known to cause significant impairment, it can be difficult for experts and laypersons alike to detect alcohol, especially among seasoned users and among people who wish to remain undetected. Detecting drugs other than alcohol presents its own set of problems, and in many cases the behavioral cues are less obvious than when alcohol has been consumed. The workshop’s focus is on police detection of alcohol and other drugs among drivers of private motor vehicles. DETECTION PROBLEMS There are many examples that illustrate serious detection problems involving alcohol consumption. In a 1957 study in which medical assessments of impaired driving ability were compared with results of actual driving tests, it was concluded that “a medical examination alone is not a reliable means of detecting alcoholic impairment of driving ability” (Crime Detection Laboratory, 1957). In several investigations around the world in which people at various BACs were diagnosed as drunk or not, only 62 percent of people with BACs of 0.10–0.15 percent were thought to be drunk (American Medical Association, 1968). Tolerance to alcohol allows many heavy drinkers to escape detection, even at very high BACs (Chesher and Greeley, 1992). Rosen and Lee (1976) found that although social drinkers exhibited behavioral signs of intoxication at BACs of 0.10 percent, alcoholics showed virtually none, even though both groups were equally impaired on cognitive performance measures involving recall of lists of numbers and words. Perper et al. (1986) reported that many alcoholics admitted to a detoxification unit had normal speech, gait, and unimpaired ability to undress, even with BACs of 0.35 percent and greater. At sobriety checkpoints conducted in North Carolina, 60 percent of drivers with A-1 A-2 TRB Circular E-C020: Issues and Methods in the Detection of Alcohol and Other Drugs BACs of 0.10 percent or greater were not detained by police for further testing (Wells et al., 1997). In a study of the detection of alcohol under ideal laboratory conditions, 40 percent of drinking subjects with BACs greater than 0.08 percent were not identified by alcohol odor after they had eaten some food (Moskowitz et al., 1997). There is scant literature on the detection of drugs other than alcohol among drivers or in other situations. On the road, drivers sometimes come under suspicion of having ingested drugs when they act impaired but test negatively for alcohol. In this context, police officers trained in drug recognition techniques are reasonably accurate in determining if drugs are, in fact, involved (Preusser et al., 1992). However, it is not known how many drugged drivers there are who do not come under suspicion in this manner. Most of the examples involving alcohol detection pertain to identifying people with high BACs. However, depending on the target population, it is also necessary to identify people with lower BACs—0.08 percent, 0.04 percent, or any alcohol—and this is correspondingly more difficult. IMPORTANCE OF DETECTION IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS Although the workshop focuses on police detection of alcohol and other drugs among drivers, there are many other instances in which we wish to detect alcohol and other drugs: commercial transportation in all forms; non-motor-vehicle pursuits such as recreational boating; industry; medical settings in cases in
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dwi Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
    U.S. DEPARTMENT PB2009103452 OF TRANSPORTATION *PB2009103452* DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) Detection & Standardized Field Sobriety Testing February, 2006 Edition Instructor Manual DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) Detection & Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Instructors Manual 2006 Edition U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Transportation Safety Institute National Highway Traffic Safety Administration HS 178 R2/06 DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) Detection & Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Instructors Manual 2006 Edition, April 2009 This Publication was prepared by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is distributed by the: National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Rd. Springfield, VA 22161 ISBN-13: 978-0-934213-66-0 DWI DETECTION AND STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TESTING TRAINING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 1. Ultimate Goal To increase deterrence of DWI violations, and thereby reduce the number of crashes, deaths and injuries caused by impaired drivers. 2. Job Performance Objectives As a result of this training, students will become significantly better able to: a. Recognize and interpret evidence of DWI violations. b. Administer and interpret standardized field sobriety tests. c. Describe DWI evidence clearly and convincingly in written reports and verbal testimony. 3. Enabling Objectives In pursuit of the job performance objectives, students will be able to: a. Describe the tasks and decisions of DWI detection. b. Recognize the magnitude and scope of DWI-related crashes, injuries, deaths, property loss and other social aspects of the DWI problem. c. Discuss the deterrence effects of DWI enforcement. d. Discuss the DWI enforcement legal environment. e. Know and recognize typical vehicle maneuvers and human indicators symptomatic of DWI that are associated with initial observation of vehicles in operation.
    [Show full text]
  • SFST PM 07 01 Session.Pdf
    At the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to: • Describe the role of psychophysical and preliminary breath tests; • Define and describe the concepts of divided attention and nystagmus; • Discuss the advantages and limitations of preliminary breath testing; and • Discuss the arrest decision process. CONTENT SEGMENTS ................................................................................................... LEARNING ACTIVITIES A. Overview: Tasks and Decision ...................................................................... Instructor-Led Presentation B. Gaze Nystagmus - Definition .................................................................. Instructor-Led Demonstrations C. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus – Definition, Concepts, Demonstration ....................... Video Presentation D. Vertical Gaze Nystagmus – Definition, Concepts, Demonstration E. Divided Attention Tests: Concepts, Examples, Demonstration F. Advantages and Limitations of Preliminary Breath Testing G. The Arrest Decision Revised: DWI Detection Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Session 7 10/2015 Phase Three: Pre-Arrest Screening Page 1 of 25 Session 7 – Phase Three: Pre-Arrest Screening Phase Three: Pre-Arrest Screening Field Sobriety Testing ? Should I Arrest? 7-3 DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing 7-3 A. Overview: Tasks and Decision Like Phases One and Two, DWI Detection Phase Three, Pre-arrest Screening has two major evidence gathering tasks and one major decision. Phase Three: Pre-Arrest Screening Your first task in Phase Three is to administer three scientifically validated Standardized Field Sobriety Tests. If your agency uses preliminary breath tests (PBTs), your second task would be to administer (or arrange for) a PBT to confirm the chemical basis of the subject's impairment. Based on these tests and on all other evidence from Phase One and Two, you must decide whether there is sufficient probable cause to arrest the subject for DWI. The entire detection process culminates in the arrest/no arrest decision.
    [Show full text]
  • Possible Interference by Common Odoriferous Foodstuffs in the Determination of Breath-Alcohol Content Using the Intoxilyzer 4011AS
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 1988 Possible interference by common odoriferous foodstuffs in the determination of breath-alcohol content using the Intoxilyzer 4011AS Gail Eileen Jones University of the Pacific Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds Part of the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Jones, Gail Eileen. (1988). Possible interference by common odoriferous foodstuffs in the determination of breath-alcohol content using the Intoxilyzer 4011AS. University of the Pacific, Thesis. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/2152 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of the Pacific Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POSSIBLE INI'ERFERENCE BY CXM-m OOORIFERCUS FOODS'IUFFS IN 'lliE DEI'ERMINATICN OF' BREATH-ALCOHOL CCNl'ENl' USIN:; THE INIDXILyzER 40llAS Gail Eileen Jones, B. s. Cameron University, Lawton, Oklahana, 1982 A 'lhesis sutmi.tted in Partial F\llfillmant of the RequirE!!"!Vants for the Degree of M:tster of Science in Toxicology at the University of the Pacific December 2, 1988 This thesis, written and submitted by Gail Eileen Jones is approved for recommendation to the Committee on Graduate Studies, University of the Pacific Dean of the School or Department Chairman: Co-Chairman Co-Chairman Dated__ ()_~__;~~~-+----'/ 9-=(......:.( __ _ TABLE OF CCNI'ENI'S Page LIST OF TABLES •• ii LIST OF FIGURES. • . i ii INI'RODUcriCN • • • • 1 Historical and Theoretical Backgroun::i • 1 Drinking, Driving and the I.aw • • 1 Ethanol : Chemical and Pharrca.cological Properties 10 Physiological Principles and the Detennination of Bl ood ~1.
    [Show full text]
  • Interview/Questioning Techniques
    Session 6-Phase Two: Personal Contact Interview/Questioning Techniques • Asking for two things simultaneously • Asking interrupting or distracting questions • Asking unusual questions DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing 6-13 D. Interview/Questioning Techniques There are a number of techniques you can use to assess impairment while the driver is still behind the wheel. Most of these techniques apply the concept of divided attention. They require the driver to concentrate on two or more things at the same time. They include both questioning techniques and psychophysical (mind/body) tasks. These techniques are not as reliable as the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests but they can still be useful for obtaining evidence of impairment. THESE TECHNIQUES DO NOT REPLACE THE SFSTs. Questioning Techniques The questions you ask and the way in which you ask them can constitute simple divided attention tasks. Three techniques are particularly pertinent: • Asking for two things simultaneously • Asking interrupting or distracting questions • Asking unusual questions. An example of the first technique, asking for two things simultaneously, is requesting the driver to produce both the driver's license and the vehicle registration. Possible evidence of impairment may be observed as the driver responds to this dual request. Be alert for the driver who: Revised: DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Session 6 10/2015 Phase Two: Personal Contact Page 12 of 21 Session 6-Phase Two: Personal Contact Session 6-Phase Two: Personal
    [Show full text]
  • Police Powers, Trespass and Expressive Rights Under the Canadian Constitution
    The Peter A. Allard School of Law Allard Research Commons Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications 2007 Police Powers, Trespass and Expressive Rights Under the Canadian Constitution W. Wesley Pue Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/fac_pubs Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons Citation Details W Wesley Pue, "Police Powers, Trespass and Expressive Rights Under the Canadian Constitution" (2007) [unpublished]. This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Allard Faculty Publications at Allard Research Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Allard Research Commons. Pue, Trespass & Rights, paper prepared for the Ipperwash Inquiry, 2005-02-04 1 of 96 Trespass and Expressive Rights By. W. Wesley Pue … the rights guaranteed in the Charter erect around each individual, metaphorically speaking, an invisible fence over which the state will not be allowed to trespass. The role of the courts is to map out, piece by piece, the parameters of the fence. • R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, at p. 164, per Wilson J. Paper prepared for The Ipperwash Inquiry, The Honourable Sidney B. Linden, Commissioner, established by the Government of Ontario on November 12, 2003, under the Public Inquiries Act to inquire and report on events surrounding the death of Dudley George, shot during a protest by First Nations representatives at Ipperwash Provincial Park in 1995. Pue, Trespass & Rights, paper prepared for the Ipperwash Inquiry, 2005-02-04 2 of 96 Table of Contents Introduction The Summit of the Americas, 2001 Legal Issues “Authorized by Law” R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Aging Process and Field Sobriety Tests
    Aging of S al c n ie r n u c o e J Journal of Aging Science Coffey, Aging Sci 2015, 3:3 ISSN: 2329-8847 DOI: 10.4172/2329-8847.1000144 Review Article Open Access The Aging Process and Field Sobriety Tests Mimi Coffey* Doctor of Jurisprudence, Texas Tech University, USA *Corresponding author: Mimi Coffey, Doctor of Jurisprudence, Texas Tech University, 2500 Broadway, Lubbock, TX 79409, United States; Tel: 817.831.3100; E-mail: [email protected] Received date: July 20, 2015; Accepted date: December 17, 2015; Published date: December 24, 2015 Copyright: © 2015 Coffey M, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Introduction performance across all age groups [12]. The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA), much akin to their arbitrary It is not surprising that every year 1.4 million Americans are cutoff, 65 years of age, [13] also references that an individual 50 lbs or diagnosed with cancer [1], the second leading cause of death next to more overweight may have difficulty with the one-leg stand test [14]. heart disease. It should be surprising that there are also approximately Of relevance is the fact that 64.5% of Americans are overweight and 1.4 million DWI/DUI arrests (1 of every 139 licensed drivers) in the 30.5% are obese [15]. Regarding physical fitness, the annual number of country a year with 16,685 alcohol related fatalities in 2005 [2].
    [Show full text]
  • Successfully Defending an OUI Case
    CHAPTER 10 Successfully Defending an OUI Case David P. Sorrenti, Esq. Sorrenti & Delano, Brockton § 10.1 Introduction ............................................................................... 10–1 § 10.2 The Offense ................................................................................ 10–2 § 10.3 Operation ................................................................................... 10–2 § 10.3.1 Definition .................................................................... 10–2 § 10.3.2 Defense ....................................................................... 10–3 § 10.4 Public Way .................................................................................. 10–4 § 10.4.1 Definition .................................................................... 10–4 § 10.4.2 Stipulation of Proof .................................................... 10–5 § 10.4.3 Defense ....................................................................... 10–5 § 10.5 Under the Influence ................................................................... 10–6 § 10.5.1 Diminished Capacity .................................................. 10–6 (a) General Principles ............................................. 10–6 (b) Opinion Evidence .............................................. 10–7 (c) Erratic Operation ............................................... 10–7 (d) Odor of Alcohol ................................................. 10–7 (e) Red or Glassy Eyes ............................................ 10–8 (f) Slurred Speech ..................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at Bacs Below 0.10 Percent
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. U.S. Deparhnent of Transportation National Highway ---.-- Traffic Safety =~==---·---- People saving People Administration hl1p~/WWW.mtsa.doLIIOV DOT HS 808 839 August 1998 FINAL REPORT Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at BACs Below 0.10 Percent r3000 Flockvillc.:! VALIDATION OF THE STANDARDIZED FIELD SOBRIETY TEST BATTERY AT BACS BELOW 0.10 PERCENT FINAL REPORT Submitted to: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Jack Stuster Marcelline Burns August1998 ANACAPA SCIENCES, INC. P.O. Box519 Santa Barbara, California 93102 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT HS 808 839 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at August 1998 BAGs Below 0.10 Percent 7. Author(s) 6. Performing Organization Code n/a Jack W. Stuster, PhD, CPE, and Marcelline Burns, PhD 8. Performing Organization Report No. n/a 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Anacapa Sciences, Inc. P.O. Box 519 11. Contract or Grant No. Santa Barbara, CA 93102 DTNH22-95-C-05192 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Final Report 400 Seventh Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20590 15. Supplemental Notes 14. Sponsoring Agency Code James F. Frank, PhD was the Contracting Officer's Technical Represenative (COTR} for this project. 16. Abstract This study evaluated the accuracy of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST} Battery to assist officers in making arrest decisions for DWI at blood alcohol concentrations (BAGs} below 0.10 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardized Field Sobriety Testing
    This Page Left Intentionally Blank Instructor Guide DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety (SFST) Testing Sobriety Refresher October 2015 Save lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes This Page Left Intentionally Blank Preface The Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) training curriculum collectively prepares police officers and other qualified persons to conduct the SFST’s for use in DWI investigations. This training, developed under the auspices and direction of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), has experienced remarkable success since its inception in the early 1980s. As in any educational training program, an instruction manual or guide is considered a “living document” that is subject to updates and changes based on advances in technology and science. A thorough review is made of information by the IACP Technical Advisory Panel (TAP) of the Highway Safety Committee of the IACP with contributions from many sources in health care science, toxicology, jurisprudence, and law enforcement. Based on this information, any appropriate revisions and modifications in background theory, facts, examination and decision making methods are made to improve the quality of the instruction as well as the standardization of guidelines for the implementation of the SFST curriculum. The reorganized manuals are then prepared and disseminated, both domestically and internationally, to the states. Changes will normally take effect 90 days after approval by the TAP, unless otherwise specified or when so designated. The procedures outlined in this manual describe how the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) are to be administered under ideal conditions. We recognize that the SFST’s will not always be administered under ideal conditions in the field, because such conditions do not always exist.
    [Show full text]
  • State V. Boles, 2020-Ohio-4485.]
    [Cite as State v. Boles, 2020-Ohio-4485.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : STATE OF OHIO : : Appellate Case No. 28704 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial Court Case No. 2019-TRC-815 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from CHASE A. BOLES : Municipal Court) : Defendant-Appellee : . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 18th day of September, 2020. NOLAN C. THOMAS, Atty. Reg. No. 0078255, City of Kettering Prosecutor’s Office, 2325 Wilmington Pike, Kettering, Ohio 45420 Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant ANGELINA N. JACKSON, Atty. Reg. No. 0077937, Montgomery County Public Defender’s Office, 117 South Main Street, Suite 400, Dayton, Ohio 45422 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee . FROELICH, J. -2- {¶ 1} The State of Ohio appeals from a decision of the Kettering Municipal Court that granted Chase A. Boles’s motion to suppress evidence that led to his arrest on charges of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (“OVI”), in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). The judgment of the trial court will be reversed, and this matter will be remanded for further proceedings. Factual and Procedural Background {¶ 2} Sometime shortly after 10 p.m. on February 12, 2019, the SUV that Boles was attempting to pull forward through an open parking space struck an unoccupied vehicle in the parking lot at Bargo’s Bar and Grill (“Bargo’s”) in Washington Township. At that time, Deputies Brandon Baker and Michael Beach of the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office happened to be arriving at Bargo’s, in separate cars, in response to a call about a different incident.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Systematically Varying the Duration of Breath Samples During Infrared-Based Alcohol Breath Testing
    Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU Dissertations Graduate College 6-2002 The Impact of Systematically Varying the Duration of Breath Samples during Infrared-Based Alcohol Breath Testing Chris C. Clatterbuck Western Michigan University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations Part of the Equipment and Supplies Commons, Investigative Techniques Commons, and the Other Psychiatry and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation Clatterbuck, Chris C., "The Impact of Systematically Varying the Duration of Breath Samples during Infrared-Based Alcohol Breath Testing" (2002). Dissertations. 1188. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/1188 This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IMPACT OF SYSTEMATICALLY VARYING THE DURATION OF BREATH SAMPLES DURING INFRARED-BASED ALCOHOL BREATH TESTING by Chris C. Clatterbuck A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College m partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Counselor Education and Counseling Psychology Western Michigan University Kalamazoo. Michigan June 2002 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE IMPACT OF SYSTEMATICALLY VARYING THE DURATION OF BREATH SAMPLES DURING
    [Show full text]
  • Herbert H. Leckie, Jd
    HERBERT H. LECKIE, JD 349 Mountain Road, Lebanon, NJ 08833 (908) 534-8300 [email protected] dwi-dreconsulting.com Skills Summary Over 33 years of experience in “Driving While Under the Influence” investigations. Expertise includes evaluation of both alcohol and drug-related DWI matters. Extensive experience in a number of breath test instruments including the Alcotest 7110 MK 111-C instrument. A former instructor in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFST’s) wherein there is the ability to evaluate the proper administration and scoring of the tests administered in DWI investigations. Evaluation of “Refusal” cases including procedural issues related to the Subjective Refusal charge. As a former Drug Recognition Expert Instructor and Course Manager, ability to evaluate cases in which an individual has been charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs (both illicit and prescription). Accepted as an expert witness in the United States Federal District Court, numerous Superior Courts as well as numerous municipal courts throughout the State of New Jersey. Also accepted as an expert witness in Supreme Court, New York County as well as New York County Criminal Court. Education Juris Doctorate, Seton Hall University School of Law (2000) • Student Bar Association President (1999-2000) Bachelor of Science, Rutgers University (1995) • Administration of Justice – with Honors Associate of Science, Middlesex County College (1982) • Criminal Justice Career Experience/Training DWI-DRE Consulting Services, Inc. (2018-Present) President Providing instruction, expert review, analysis and testimony in the following areas: Breathalyzer 900/900A, Alcotest 7110 MK III-C, Standardized Field Sobriety Test Procedures and Drug Recognition Expert Evaluation Case Review.
    [Show full text]