Supreme Court denies stay of proceedings involving DRE testimony requested by AG
The Supreme Court denied a motion to stay proceedings that raise issues regarding the admissibility of drug recognition experts (DREs) testimony, which may be potentially affected by the pending appeal in the matter of State v. Olenowski. The Supreme Court has appointed a special master to hold hearings and make a recommendation on the reliability of DRE evidence in the matter, calling into question the reliability of expert testimony of DREs who perform drug influence evaluations (DIEs). The trial court upheld the convictions of Michael Olenowski for driving while intoxicated on the basis of DRE testimony, a decision which the Appellate Division affirmed.
The New Jersey State Bar Association (NJSBA) filed an amicus curiae brief questioning the legitimacy of DRE testimony, arguing that it lacks the foundation to meet the Frye standard for expert opinions. “Given the scientific nature of the DIE and DRE opinion, the appropriate standard of review for their admissibility should be based on general acceptance within the scientific community,” the NJSBA brief said. Absent this, DRE evidence should be inadmissible, argued the NJSBA.
The NJSBA opposed the state’s request for a stay of other matters involving DRE evidence, contending in a brief drafted by John Menzel, Joshua H. Reinitz and Miles S. Winder III that a blanket stay fails to account for other factors in each individual case and could result in an injustice to the parties if a case could be resolved on other grounds.
The Supreme Court order, dated Feb. 14, makes clear that “[t]he Court expresses no view on the merits of any stay application filed in an individual case in Municipal Court or Superior Court by a party to a proceeding involving DRE testimony.” Source NJSBACapitol Report March 2, 2020
https://tcms.njsba.com/PersonifyEbusiness/Default.aspx?TabID=1820&utm_source=direct&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NJSBA
