DRE testimony has become a fixture in North Carolina’s most serious impaired driving cases, including felony death by vehicle and
second-degree murder charges.
The Court of Appeals’ July 2025 opinion in North Carolina v. Moore provides essential guidance for lawyers, judges, and anyone facing charges based on drug impairment evidence. Understanding how DRE testimony is used, challenged, and scrutinized at trial can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal, and may shape plea negotiations and appellate strategy.
When legal charges involve both scientific analysis and complex courtroom questions, DRE testimony can have a significant impact on the outcome. At Powers Law Firm, clients facing felony death by vehicle, felony serious injury by vehicle, misdemeanor death by vehicle, and impaired driving charges trust our experience with serious criminal charges in Mecklenburg, Iredell, Union, Gaston, Lincoln, Rowan, and Stanly Counties. We review select cases across North Carolina. If your case hinges on technical or scientific evidence involving DRE testimony or allegations of drug impairment, please can TEXT or call 704-342-4357 to schedule a confidential consultation.
Carolina Criminal Defense & DUI Lawyer Updates
health to religious observance and athletic discipline. While it may offer certain physiological benefits, fasting also triggers changes in the body’s metabolic pathways that may complicate the interpretation of forensic alcohol testing in DWI cases.
a range of charges depending on the circumstances. Two of the most serious offenses are Felony Death by Vehicle and Second-Degree Murder.
preliminary roadside screening with a handheld device, the real focal point often comes from the Intoximeter EC/IR II machine. This desktop breath-testing device measures deep-lung air and generates an official reading that prosecutors regularly use as evidence at trial.
(SFSTs) to gauge whether enough evidence exists for an arrest or further chemical testing. Roadside dexterity tests—commonly the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, the Walk-and-Turn test, and the One-Leg Stand test—remain a subject of debate. Questions arise about whether these tests are truly “standardized,” whether they reliably they measure impairment or are overly subjective, and how courts treat SFSTs as evidence.
screening at the roadside and an evidentiary test under the state’s implied consent laws. These procedures are guided by statutes like G.S. 20-16.2, which defines the expectations placed on a driver once probable cause is established. Although both tests relate to detecting alcohol, they serve different functions and carry different legal consequences.
license violations and to enforce the “drunk driving” (impaired driving) laws. The process must follow certain constitutional and statutory guidelines to avoid arbitrary or discriminatory stops.
circumstances, raise doubt about whether a reported BAC reflects the true breath alcohol content.
impairment. Q