Search
Michigan Drug Recognition Experts: What DRE Evaluations and Roadside Drug Tests Really Show
Michigan drug recognition experts, usually called DREs, are police officers trained to investigate suspected drug-impaired driving. In the right case, police may combine roadside observations, field sobriety tests, a DRE evaluation, and chemical testing to try to prove an OWI based on drugs. But those pieces of evidence do not all prove the same thing. Presence of a drug is not the same as actual impairment, and in marijuana cases that distinction matters a great deal.1234
What Is a Michigan Drug Recognition Expert?
Michigan drug recognition experts are defined broadly by statute, but the courtroom question is usually more specific. Under MCL 257.625t, the term means a law enforcement officer trained to recognize impairment in a driver under the influence of a controlled substance rather than, or in addition to, alcohol.1 The Michigan State Police Drug Recognition Expert Program, however, describes a more structured certification path. MSP explains that applicants must complete SFST and ARIDE prerequisites, DRE classroom training, field certification training, and biannual recertification.2
Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

















If you have been arrested for any of the various
Many pilots assume the only question is whether they will be convicted in Michigan court. That is too narrow. The FAA separates pilot certificate issues from medical certification issues, and a single incident can create problems in both systems.
The decision to enter HPRP, and when to enter, is among the most consequential decisions a Michigan healthcare professional can make after an alcohol or drug-related charge. It should never be made without coordination between a criminal defense attorney and a healthcare licensing attorney.
Michigan’s implied consent law rests on a legal fiction: by accepting a Michigan driver’s license, a person is deemed to have consented in advance to a chemical test if lawfully arrested for OWI. But that fictional consent cannot operate as a legitimate exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement until it comes into actual existence. It does so only when the officer reads the prescribed chemical test rights advisement following a lawful arrest, and the driver is given a genuine opportunity to either reaffirm that consent by submitting to the test or withdraw it by refusing. Until that advisement is given, there is no actual consent, only the legal fiction of it, and a fiction alone cannot satisfy the Fourth Amendment.