TACTICAL APPLICATION IN COURT

Finding a problem in an investigation is only useful if the defense can do something with it.

THE OFFICER IS ALREADY AN EXPERT IN THE ROOM

In an OWI case, the arresting officer comes into court with training, experience, and firsthand involvement in the investigation. The officer can explain what they observed, how they interpreted the SFSTs, and why they believed the driver was impaired.

A defense attorney can challenge those conclusions through cross-examination. My role is different. As a former Field Training Officer, SFST instructor, police academy instructor, and Drug Recognition Expert, I can independently review the same evidence and explain whether the officer’s administration, interpretation, and conclusions are actually consistent with the training officers receive.

This becomes particularly important when the officer’s report and testimony sound technically correct, but the video shows something different.

WHEN THE OFFICER DOESN’T KNOW THE STANDARD

One of the things I look for is whether the officer can actually explain the training behind the conclusions in the report. I have reviewed cases where officers use terms such as “slow reaction to light,” “constricted pupils,” or specific SFST clues, but cannot explain what those observations mean or how they are supposed to be interpreted.

I saw the same thing as an instructor and Field Training Officer. Officers sometimes become comfortable doing things the way they have always done them, even when that method is inconsistent with their training. If nobody asks the right questions, those practices can go unchallenged.

That matters in court. If an officer relies on a standardized test or a physiological observation to support an opinion of impairment, the officer should be able to explain the standard, how it was applied, and how the observation supports the conclusion.

WHAT THIS GIVES THE DEFENSE

An attorney does not need me to tell them how to cross-examine a police officer. What I can provide is the technical foundation behind that cross-examination. I can identify the specific portions of the video, report, SFST administration, DRE evaluation, or officer training that deserve closer attention and explain why.

That can mean identifying a claimed HGN clue that is not supported by the video, an SFST instruction or demonstration that does not match the standardized procedure, a drug-impairment observation that does not match the suspected drug category, or an officer using terminology they cannot adequately explain.

It also allows the defense to get beyond simply asking whether the officer believes they performed the investigation correctly. The issue becomes what the officer was trained to do, what they actually did, and whether the evidence supports the conclusion they reached.

EXPERT TESTIMONY AND HYPOTHETICALS

Expert testimony can also allow the defense to address technical issues in a way that is difficult to accomplish through cross-examination alone. Rather than relying entirely on the arresting officer to agree that something was done incorrectly, I can explain the applicable training, how the procedure is supposed to be performed, and what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from the evidence.

Hypothetical questions can also be useful. An attorney can ask how changing a particular fact would affect the interpretation of an investigation. For example, whether the same SFST performance should be interpreted differently depending on whether a PBT later reads .04 or .10, or whether an admission to taking prescription medication changes what the officer actually observed before the admission.

The purpose is not to tell a judge or jury what result to reach. It is to give them the technical information necessary to evaluate the officer’s conclusions for themselves.

WHY MY BACKGROUND MATTERS

I spent eight years in law enforcement and conducted approximately 300 OWI investigations. I was also a Field Training Officer, SFST instructor, Drug Recognition Expert, and police academy instructor. I have administered these tests, taught officers how to administer them, reviewed other officers’ work, and testified about impaired-driving investigations in court.

That background gives me a practical understanding of how these investigations actually happen, not just how they are described in a report or training manual. I know what officers are taught, what they are expected to understand, and where mistakes or misunderstandings commonly occur.

I do not assume an officer did something wrong simply because I am reviewing the case for the defense. If the evidence supports the officer’s conclusions, I will say that. If it does not, I can explain specifically where the problem is and why it matters.