Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Judicial Perspective on Expert Testimony in Marijuana Driving Cases

  • Proceedings
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The decriminalization of marijuana and propagation of marijuana prescribed for medical reasons have resulted in an increase in driving while under the influence of marijuana. Currently, the legal definition of marijuana driving impairment varies by state across the United States. Expert witnesses such as drug recognition experts and medical toxicologists are needed during a discovery to educate attorneys and during a testimony to educate judges and juries. These proceedings provide an overview of the US case law about driving impairment, the current status of the legal thresholds used in the courts for the admission of the medical toxicologist as an expert witness in marijuana driving and related cases, and provides an understanding of evolving issues surrounding the admissibility of their scientific opinion testimony.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Reilly M. Maryland decriminalizes marijuana possession [Internet]. Huffington Post. 2014 Available from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/maryland-marijuana-decriminalization_n_5107412.html. Accessed 27 Jun 2016.

  2. National Institutes of Health. Prevalence of marijuana use among U.S. adults doubles over past decade [Internet]. 2015 Available from: https://www-nih-gov.ezproxy.med.nyu.edu/news-events/news-releases/prevalence-marijuana-use-among-us-adults-doubles-over-past-decade. Accessed 21 Jun 2016.

  3. Governors Highway Safety Association. Drug-impaired driving laws [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/dre_perse_laws.html. Accessed 21 Jun 2016.

  4. Los Angeles Police Department. The Evolution of the DRE officer and program-Los Angeles Police Department [Internet]. lapdonline.org. Available from: http://www.lapdonline.org/special_operations_support_division/content_basic_view/1038. Accessed 21 Jun 2016.

  5. Legal Information Institute. Rule 702. Testimony by expert witnesses [Internet]. law.cornell.edu. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702. Accessed 21 Jun 2016.

  6. Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 47, 293 F. 1013, 1014. (1923) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.law.ufl.edu/_pdf/faculty/little/topic8.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  7. Daubert v. Merrell, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993) [Internet]. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-102.ZO.html. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  8. The Frye standard and rule 702 of the federal rules of evidence [Internet]. forensiclaw.uslegal.com. Available from: http://forensiclaw.uslegal.com/litigation-history-of-forensic-evidence/the-frye-standard-and-rule-702-of-the-federal-rules-of-evidence. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  9. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (U.S. Mar 23, 1999) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.oceantomo.com/pdf/KumhoTireCoLtdvCarmichael_0.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  10. State v. Shreck, 22 P.3d 68 (Colo., 2001) [Internet]. Available from: http://www.dauberttracker.com/documents/authorities/schreck.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  11. People v. Kelly - 17 Cal.3d 24 - Fri, 05/28/1976 | California Supreme Court Resources [Internet]. scocal.stanford.edu. Available from: http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-kelly-23058. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  12. State v. Rimmasch, 775 p. 2d 388, (1989) [Internet]. law.justia.com. Available from: http://law.justia.com/cases/utah/supreme-court/1989/20760.html. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  13. Reed v. State, 391 A.2d 364, 283 Md. 374 [Internet]. courtlistener.com. Available from: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1956286/reed-v-state. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  14. Porath-Waller AJ, Beirness DJ. An examination of the validity of the standardized field sobriety test in detecting drug impairment using data from the drug evaluation and classification program. Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15:125–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Drug evaluation and classification program [Internet]. Available from: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/drepp.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  16. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Validated at BACS Below 0.10 Percent [Internet]. nhtsa.gov. Available from: http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Standardized+Field+Sobriety+Test+(SFST) + Validated + at + BACS + Below + 0.10 + Percent. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  17. Stuster J. Validation of the standardized field sobriety test battery at 0.08 % blood alcohol concentration. Hum Factors. 2006;48:608–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubenzer, SJ. The standardized field sobriety tests: a review of scientific and legal issues. Law Hum Behav. Springer; 2008. pp. 293–313.

  19. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus: The Science And The Law [Internet]. nhtsa.gov. Available from: http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/A+Resource+Guide+Describes+The+Science+And+The+Law+About+Horizontal+Gaze+Nystagmus. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  20. Papafotiou K, Carter JD, Stough C. An evaluation of the sensitivity of the standardised field sobriety tests (SFSTs) to detect impairment due to marijuana intoxication. Psychopharmacology. 2004;180:107–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Drug Categories-Los Angeles Police Department [Internet]. lapdonline.org. Available from: http://www.lapdonline.org/special_operations_support_division/content_basic_view/1039. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  22. Bosker WM, Theunissen EL, Conen S, Kuypers KPC, Jeffery WK, Walls HC, et al. A placebo-controlled study to assess standardized field sobriety tests performance during alcohol and cannabis intoxication in heavy cannabis users and accuracy of point of collection testing devices for detecting THC in oral fluid. Psychopharmacology. 2012;223:439–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Hartman RL, Richman JE, Hayes CE, Huestis MA. Drug recognition expert (DRE) examination characteristics of cannabis impairment. Accid Anal Prev Elsevier Ltd. 2016;92:219–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Logan BK, Kacinko SL, Beirness DJ. An evaluation of data from drivers arrested for driving under the influence in relation to per se limits for cannabis [Internet]. aaafoundation.org. Available from: https://www.aaafoundation.org/evaluation-data-drivers-arrested-driving-under-influence-relation-se-limits-cannabis. Accessed 23 Jun 2016.

  25. McShane JJ. Why it is not legitimate to retrograde extrapolate a DUID result based upon one measurement [Internet]. thetruthaboutforensicscience.com. Available from: http://www.thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/legitimate-retrograde-extrapolate-duid-result-based-upon-one-measurement. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  26. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Drugs and human performance fact sheets - Cannabis / Marijuana (Delta 9 -Tetrahydrocannabinol, THC) [Internet]. nhtsa.gov. Available from: http://www.nhtsa.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/research/job185drugs/cannabis.htm. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  27. Lenné MG, Dietze PM, Triggs TJ, Walmsley S, Murphy B, Redman JR. The effects of cannabis and alcohol on simulated arterial driving: influences of driving experience and task demand. Accid Anal Prev. 2010;42:859–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hartman RL, Huestis MA. Cannabis effects on driving skills. Clin Chem. 2013;59:478–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. OASAS. Drugged Driving [Internet]. oasas.ny.gov. Available from: https://www.oasas.ny.gov/admed/fyi/drugdriving.cfm. Accessed 3 July 2016.

  30. Ramaekers JG, Moeller MR, van Ruitenbeek P, Theunissen EL, Schneider E, Kauert G. Cognition and motor control as a function of Delta9-THC concentration in serum and oral fluid: limits of impairment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2006;85:114–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Marijuana DUI Workgroup. Recommendation to the drug policy task force and Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice [Internet]. Available from: http://norml.org/pdf_files/MMIG_Workgroup_Recommendation_9-6-11.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2016.

  32. Hartman RL, Brown TL, Milavetz G, Spurgin A, Pierce RS, Gorelick DA, et al. Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2015;154:25–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. DuPont RL, Logan BK, Shea CL, Talpins SK, Voas RB. Drugged driving research: a white paper [Internet]. 2011. Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/issues-content/drugged-driving/nida_dd_paper.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2016.

  34. California Society of Addiction Medicine. The adverse effects of marijuana [Internet]. csam-asam.org. Available from: http://www.csam-asam.org/adverse-effects-marijuana-healthcare-professionals. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  35. Bosker WM, Karschner EL, Lee D, Goodwin RS, Hirvonen J, Innis RB, et al. Psychomotor function in chronic daily cannabis smokers during sustained abstinence. PLoS One. 2013;8:e53127.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wakley AA, Wiley JL, Craft RM. Sex differences in antinociceptive tolerance to delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in the rat. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014;143:22–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Kerrigan S. Drug toxicology for prosecutors: targeting hardcore impaired drivers. American Prosecutors Research Institute; 2004. Available from: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicology_for_prosecutors_04.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2016.

  38. Shepherd M. Experts: Effort to set blood standard for marijuana-impaired driving not backed by science - Central Maine [Internet]. centralmaine.com. [accessed 2016 Jun 26]. Available from: http://www.centralmaine.com/2015/04/30/experts-effort-to-set-blood-standard-for-marijuana-impaired-driving-not-backed-by-science. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  39. Chen A. Blood tests can’t tell who’s really too stoned to drive: shots - health news : NPR [Internet]. npr.org. Available from: http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/02/09/466147956/why-its-so-hard-to-make-a-solid-test-for-driving-while-stoned. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  40. Reisfield GM, Goldberger BA, Gold MS, DuPont RL. The mirage of impairing drug concentration thresholds: a rationale for zero tolerance per Se driving under the influence of drugs Laws. J Anal Toxicol. 2012;36:353–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Banta-Green C. Cannabis use among drivers suspected of driving under the infuence or involved in collisions: analysis of Washington State Patrol Data [Internet]. 2016 Apr pp. 1–35. Available from: https://www.aaafoundation.org/cannabis-use-among-drivers-suspected-driving-under-influence-or-involved-collisions-analysis. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  42. Stop drugged driving—the drugged driving problem [Internet]. stopdruggeddriving.org. Available from: http://www.stopdruggeddriving.org/ddp.html. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  43. Learn about marijuana: factsheets: alcohol and marijuana [Internet]. adai.washington.edu. Available from: http://adai.washington.edu/marijuana/factsheets/alcohol.htm. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  44. Sewell RA, Poling J, Sofuoglu M. The effect of cannabis compared with alcohol on driving. Am J Addict. 2009;18:185–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) [Internet]. law.cornell.edu. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-9410.ZO.html. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  46. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts : 557 U.S. 305 (2009) : Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center [Internet]. supreme.justia.com. Available from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/557/305. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  47. Bullcoming v. New Mexico Resource Page [Internet]. federalevidence.com. Available from: http://federalevidence.com/evidence-resources/sixth-amendment-confrontation-clause/bullcoming-v-new-mexico. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

  48. Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (2012) [Internet]. law.cornell.edu. Available from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-8505. Accessed 26 Jun 2016.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The editors are grateful to Dr. Lewis Nelson for his constructive suggestions and helpful revisions to this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Denver, CO, USA

    Mary A. Celeste

Authors
  1. Mary A. Celeste
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary A. Celeste.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

None.

Sources of Funding

None.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Celeste, M.A. A Judicial Perspective on Expert Testimony in Marijuana Driving Cases. J. Med. Toxicol. 13, 117–123 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-016-0579-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-016-0579-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation