A Minnesota case showing how therapeutic amphetamine levels, DRE testimony, and lack of bad driving can defeat a drugged driving charge and license revocation.
On paper, this looked like an easy win for the State.
A DRE. A positive blood test. A controlled substance.
It wasn’t.
My client was arrested for allegedly driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officers said he showed signs of impairment. A Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE) backed that up. The blood test showed amphetamine in his system. On paper, that is the kind of case the State usually feels very comfortable with. But the case did not add up.
The State’s case depended on a simple assumption: if amphetamine is present, the driver must be impaired.
That assumption is not science. And it is not the law.
My client had ADHD. He was prescribed Adderall. He took it as prescribed. I knew this was not a case where I could just argue that the officers got it wrong. I had to build the affirmative defense and prove it with actual evidence. That meant getting past the surface-level story the State wanted to tell.
The stop was not based on bad driving. There was no erratic driving or traffic violation. The vehicle was stopped because a plate reader showed the registered owner had a revoked license. If someone is truly impaired, you expect to see it in how they drive. That was missing here.
Instead of letting the toxicology come in as just another exhibit the State could wave around, I subpoenaed the BCA forensic scientist and made her testify. I wanted the court to hear directly from the person behind the testing what the blood result actually meant, and just as importantly, what it did not mean.
The blood result was .049 mg/L of amphetamine.
Through the BCA scientist, I established that this level falls squarely within the therapeutic range of .02 to .15 mg/L and well below the toxic level of .2 mg/L.
In other words, the science did not show impairment. It showed prescribed use.
That was the turning point. Once the State’s own scientist confirmed where that number fell, the State’s case started to break down. The State wanted the court to treat the presence of amphetamine as proof of impairment. I wanted the court to focus on the number, the range, and what the science actually showed.
I also worked to show the court that there were other explanations for what the officers thought they were seeing. My client had documented medical issues, including body tremors and speech issues. He had ADHD. And, like many people, he did not perform well in a high-stress roadside encounter with law enforcement.
The officers treated those observations as signs of impairment, even though known, documented conditions explained them just as well. The evidence did not support that leap.
The officers testified to signs they associated with impairment. The DRE gave an opinion.
But the evidence told a different story.
No bad driving. A valid prescription. A therapeutic blood level. Medical conditions that explained the officers’ observations. That is not proof of impairment.
Once the BCA scientist conceded where that blood level fell, the theory of the case started to come apart.
The court ultimately rescinded the revocation (overturned the license revocation)! The order specifically recognizes that the amphetamine level was within the therapeutic range and not at or above a toxic level. The court also noted there was no erratic driving before the stop and found the blood test results were consistent with prescription medication usage. I was able to convince the prosecutor to dismiss the criminal case. That is what I am proud of in this case.
The result mattered, but I’m most proud of how we got there.
I did not let the State decide the case with labels. “DRE.” “Controlled substance.” “Positive blood test.” Those words sound powerful, but they do not prove impairment.
I made the State’s own forensic scientist explain the science. I made the court focus on the actual blood level, not just the presence of a drug. Once that happened, the gap between suspicion and proof became impossible to ignore. A positive test is not proof of impairment.
