Urine Tests in Oregon DUII Cases: Importance of a DRE

When facing a Driving Under the Influence of Intoxicants (DUII) charge in Oregon-especially one involving controlled substances-law enforcement often relies on a range of evidence, including urine tests. However, these tests face frequent challenges when no Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) is conducted.

Below, we explore how DREs function, why urine tests alone can be problematic, and how the absence of a DRE can weaken the State’s case under Oregon’s Rules of Evidence and key appellate decisions

The Role of Urine Tests in DUII Cases

Urine tests primarily detect the presence of controlled substances or their metabolites. Unlike breath or blood tests, urine testing cannot pinpoint a driver’s current level of impairment. Metabolites found in urine often reflect past use, sometimes days or even weeks prior to the sample collection. Thus, a positive urine test does not establish whether a driver was actively impaired at the time they were operating a vehicle.

Why This Matters for the State’s Burden of Proof

Because Oregon prosecutors must prove impairment during vehicle operation, a mere showing of prior drug consumption often fails to meet that standard. Without corroboration linking the metabolites to real-time impairment, urine test evidence may be deemed speculative or even prejudicial, diminishing its probative value in court.

What is a Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE)?

A Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) is a carefully structured, 12-step process administered by a specially trained law enforcement officer. DRE training emphasizes identifying verifiable signs of drug-induced impairment and linking those observations to specific classes of drugs. The standard DRE protocol includes:

1. Breath Alcohol Test – Determines if alcohol is involved.
2. Interview with Arresting Officer – Provides contextual observations of driving behavior.
3. Preliminary Examination – Rules out medical conditions that could mimic drug impairment.
4. Eye Examinations – Assesses pupil size, reactivity to light, and nystagmus (involuntary eye movement).
5. Divided Attention Tests – Includes various field sobriety tests to gauge coordination and focus.
6. Vital Signs Examination – Checks blood pressure, pulse rate, and temperature.
7. Dark Room Examinations – Examines pupil dilation under different light conditions.
8. Muscle Tone Check – Evaluates body rigidity or flaccidity.
9. Injection Sites Check – Looks for physical evidence of drug use.
10. Subject Statements – Gathers admissions or denials about drug consumption.
11. Toxicology Sampling – Collects biological samples (urine, blood, or saliva) for lab analysis.
12. Evaluation and Opinion – Concludes which drug category (if any) is causing impairment.

By tying physiological signs of impairment to potential drug use, a properly administered DRE gives context to toxicology findings and can significantly bolster the State’s argument regarding actual impairment.

Case Law: State v. Sampson and Follow-Up Decisions

State v. Sampson, 167 Or App 489, 6 P3d 543 (2000)

This landmark Oregon Court of Appeals decision authenticated the scientific validity of the DRE protocol under OEC 702, provided the evaluation was conducted by properly trained officers. Key points include:

• DRE methodology is based on reliable scientific principles.
• A correctly administered DRE links demonstrable impairment to a particular drug category.

The court also made it clear that a misapplied or improperly administered DRE can result in the evidence being excluded.

State v. Aman, 194 Or App 463, 95 P3d 244 (2004) In Aman, the Oregon Court of Appeals emphasized the necessity of proving a direct link between observed impairment and the substance identified in toxicology results.

State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 899 P2d 663 (1995)

Although this decision largely addressed field sobriety tests, it also set rigorous standards for the admission of scientific evidence. Courts must ensure that the methods are reliable and valid, a principle that applies equally to DREs and urine tests.

These decisions reflect the judiciary’s skepticism about admitting scientific evidence-particularly urine test results-without the proper foundation. Absent a DRE, the State often struggles to meet these criteria.

Moving to Exclude Urine Test Evidence When No DRE Is Performed

Defense attorneys in Oregon can leverage multiple Oregon Evidence Code provisions to exclude urine test evidence in DUII cases that lack a DRE:

1. OEC 401/402 – Argue lack of relevance to present impairment.
2. OEC 403 – Emphasize the unfair prejudice and speculative nature of the results.
3. OEC 702 – Challenge the scientific reliability when the test cannot show real-time impairment.
4. OEC 602/701 – Object to any testimony or evidence that forces jurors to speculate without expert correlation.

A prudent defense approach includes requesting an OEC 104 hearing to present expert testimony on urine test limitations, highlighting the absence of DRE data that could otherwise link test results to actual impairment.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways Urine tests identify whether someone has used a controlled substance in the recent-or sometimes not-so-recent-past, but they do not prove present impairment. A properly administered DRE is the crucial link between toxicological findings and observed signs of impairment. Without this vital connection, the State risks having urine test evidence excluded, weakening its DUII case considerably.

For Oregon DUII practitioners, challenging the admissibility of urine tests absent a DRE is often a cornerstone of effective defense strategy. Citing relevant case law-including State v. Sampson, State v. Aman, and State v. O’Key-and employing the proper evidentiary rules can help ensure a fair trial and hold the State to its burden of proof.

Attorney Fees

Our office handles criminal cases on either a flat-fee or hourly fee basis. If you or someone you know in Eugene or throughout western or southern Oregon needs the assistance of an experienced criminal defense lawyer, call/text attorney Mike Arnold today at 541-359-4585.

Pretrial Release Decision (Bail and Release Agreements)

Your attorney can move the court for pretrial release or to reduce bail. Most Oregon counties have true judicial scrutiny of the bail amounts and release decisions. Lane County in particular has been under increased scrutiny for its failure to have an elected judge truly review the release decisions by the unelected bureaucrats at Pretrial Services, an arm of the circuit court.

Apply to be a Client – Free Intake Team Consult

If you’re ready to secure robust, aggressive, and knowledgeable legal representation, contact the Law Office of Mike Arnold today for a free intake team consultation.

Contact Information: Call 541-359-4585, schedule a free intake call, or send an email to connect with our team.