DISTRICT JUDGES REJECT DRUG-EXPERT TESTIMONY; PROSECUTORS PLAN APPEAL

TACOMA (AP) -- Pierce County prosecutors are throwing out 35
driving-under-the-influence cases, citing a recent decision by five
District Court judges to bar testimony from trained drug-recognition experts.

"I feel we have no choice but to dismiss these cases without this valuable
evidence for the jury, but the matter is so important we are asking the
Supreme Court for immediate review," Prosecutor John Ladenburg said.

He said he expected a decision from the state's highest court in six months
to a year. If the court rules in prosecutors' favor, the cases will be
refiled, Ladenburg said.

Impaired driving is becoming more common, he said, and the judges' May 19
ruling "removes one of the state's most important tools to combat this
danger."

People suspected of drunken driving still will be charged, but those
suspected of being under the influence of drugs aren't as likely to be
hauled into court, Ladenburg said Tuesday.

The Pierce County District Court judges, ruling that special
drug-recognition training isn't scientifically reliable enough, barred
testimony from the trained officers speculating about what drug or drugs a
suspect might have ingested.

Drug cases are harder to prove than alcohol offenses because the
blood-alcohol test generally given to suspected drunken drivers doesn't
identify methamphetamines, cocaine or heroin, Ladenburg said.

Testing for drugs at the scene is not routine. That makes it essential that
police officers who have completed Drug Recognition Expert training be
permitted to testify about their conclusions, he said.

In DRE training, officers are taught to use interrogation, observation of
the nose and mouth, searches for needle marks, tests for pupil reaction,
and checking a suspect's pulse, temperature and blood pressure.

Thirty-five police officers -- about half of them from the Washington State
Patrol -- have completed DRE training in this state. Another 25 Washington
officers are working toward certification in the program, now in place in
33 states.

Appellate courts in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Iowa,
Minnesota, New York, Texas, Utah and the Federal District Court of Nevada
have upheld the admissibility of Drug Recognition Expert testimony,
Ladenburg said. And such testimony is routinely used in King County
District Court, Seattle Municipal Court and Tacoma Municipal Court.

The five Pierce County District Court judges, who handle 90 percent of the
court's caseload, said letting police testify about what drugs suspects may
have taken without physical evidence would amount to speculation.

"The scientific community does not support the theory that DREs can
accurately state which drug a person has ingested, when that ingestion
occurred, or a given drug's pharmacological action," the judges said in
their written decision.

"Thus, while the observations of the suspect's physiological and behavioral
traits give strong evidence of what drug family or families are at work,
the DRE cannot say, with scientific accuracy, which drug or family of drugs
is at work," they said.

In King County,"cases with DRE being the only evidence have been relatively
rare here," said Dan Donohoe, spokesman for Prosecutor Norm Maleng.

"In most of our cases, there is some other type of evidence, whether it is
an admission by the suspect, failing physical tests or something else."

Checked-by: "R. Lake"