Officer\u2019s testimony that he was a drug recognition expert didn\u2019t support probable cause here that defendant was under the influence when driving because there was also no evidence of impairment. United States v. McAuley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181937 (W.D.N.Y. March 19, 2014):
\n<\/p>\n
Moreover, even if such a conclusion could be inferred from Marx’s testimony, his testimony does not explain how his training and experience as a drug recognition expert informed such a conclusion. While he testified that dilated pupils may indicate drug use, he also testified that dilated pupils and the other characteristics McAuley displayed may have benign explanations. He admitted that McAuley did not seem to be impaired. Moreover, at one point in his testimony, Marx even suggested that if he had discovered only the marijuana roach and not the methamphetamine, he would have investigated further before deciding to arrest McAuley for DUI metabolite. (Tr. 86). On this record, it was incumbent upon the government to explain whether and, if so, why a drug recognition expert like Marx would have believed before searching him that McAuley \u2014 even though he did not appear impaired \u2014 had a measurable amount of controlled substance metabolite in his system. As this Court observed at the February 4 court appearance, it does not have the experience from which to make that conclusion. Again, the Court invited additional testimony on that very issue. The government declined to offer it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Officer\u2019s testimony that he was a drug recognition expert didn\u2019t support probable cause here that defendant was under the influence when driving because there was also no evidence of impairment. United States v. McAuley, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181937 (W.D.N.Y. … Continue reading