emit test in Texas

2013The reliability of [the EMIT] test [as a screen for broad categories of drugs] has been litigated extensively before fact-finders, with the parties being able to offer live testimony and to conduct cross-examination.” Hernandez , 116 S.W.3d at 42 (Keller, P.J., concurring) ( citing Jones v. United States , 548 A.2d 35 , 44–46 (D.C. 1988)); see also Spence v. Farrier , 807 F.2d 753, 756 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing cases and discussing general acceptance of EMIT test results as relevant evidence).

2013The reliability of [the EMIT] test [as a screen for broad categories of drugs] has been litigated extensively before fact-finders, with the parties being able to offer live testimony and to conduct cross-examination.” Hernandez, 116 S.W.3d at 42 (Keller, P.J., concurring) (citing Jones v. United States, 548 A.2d 35, 44-46 (D.C.1988)); see also Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1986) (citing cases and discussing general acceptance of EMIT test results as relevant evidence).

2016The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has already determined that “the reliability of even a single unconfirmed EMIT test has been sufficiently established that it meets the first two Kelly prongs.” Id. at 545 .

2016The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has already determined that “the reliability of even a single unconfirmed EMIT test has been sufficiently established that it meets the first two Kelly prongs.” Id. at 545 .

2013The reliability of [the EMIT] test [as a screen for broad categories of drugs] has been litigated extensively before fact-finders, with the parties being able to offer live testimony and to conduct cross-examination.” Hernandez , 116 S.W.3d at 42 (Keller, P.J., concurring) ( citing Jones v. United States , 548 A.2d 35 , 44–46 (D.C. 1988)); see also Spence v. Farrier , 807 F.2d 753, 756 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing cases and discussing general acceptance of EMIT test results as relevant evidence).

2013The reliability of [the EMIT] test [as a screen for broad categories of drugs] has been litigated extensively before fact-finders, with the parties being able to offer live testimony and to conduct cross-examination.” Hernandez, 116 S.W.3d at 42 (Keller, P.J., concurring) (citing Jones v. United States, 548 A.2d 35, 44-46 (D.C.1988)); see also Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1986) (citing cases and discussing general acceptance of EMIT test results as relevant evidence).

2013The reliability of [the EMIT] test [as a screen for broad categories of drugs] has been litigated extensively before fact-finders, with the parties being able to offer live testimony and to conduct cross-examination.” Hernandez , 116 S.W.3d at 42 (Keller, P.J., concurring) ( citing Jones v. United States , 548 A.2d 35 , 44–46 (D.C. 1988)); see also Spence v. Farrier , 807 F.2d 753, 756 (8th Cir. 1986) (citing cases and discussing general acceptance of EMIT test results as relevant evidence).

2013The reliability of [the EMIT] test [as a screen for broad categories of drugs] has been litigated extensively before fact-finders, with the parties being able to offer live testimony and to conduct cross-examination.” Hernandez, 116 S.W.3d at 42 (Keller, P.J., concurring) (citing Jones v. United States, 548 A.2d 35, 44-46 (D.C.1988)); see also Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753, 756 (8th Cir.1986) (citing cases and discussing general acceptance of EMIT test results as relevant evidence).

2013See, e.g., Matter of Gordon v. Brown, 84 N.Y.2d 574, 577 , 620 N.Y.S.2d 749 , 644 N.E.2d 1305, 1306 (N.Y.1994).

2013See, e.g., Matter of Gordon v. Brown, 84 N.Y.2d 574, 577 , 620 N.Y.S.2d 749 , 644 N.E.2d 1305, 1306 (N.Y.1994).

2013Bolieu v. State , 779 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, no writ); see also Combs v. State , 6 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Texas and Federal courts have found the gas chromatography test to be a reliable method for identifying compounds, and it has been generally accept[ed] in the scientific community.”).

2013Bolieu v. State, 779 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989, no writ); see also Combs v. State, 6 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Texas and Federal courts have found the gas chromatography test to be a reliable method for identifying compounds, and it has been generally accepted] in the scientific community.”).

2013Bolieu v. State , 779 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, no writ); see also Combs v. State , 6 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Texas and Federal courts have found the gas chromatography test to be a reliable method for identifying compounds, and it has been generally accept[ed] in the scientific community.”).

2013Bolieu v. State, 779 S.W.2d 489, 490 (Tex.App.-Austin 1989, no writ); see also Combs v. State, 6 S.W.3d 319, 322 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.) (“Texas and Federal courts have found the gas chromatography test to be a reliable method for identifying compounds, and it has been generally accepted] in the scientific community.”).

2013Somers v. State, 333 S.W.3d 747, 753 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010) ("As previously discussed, the EMIT test was positive for cocaine, but the confirmation [GCMS] test was negative.”), overruled on other grounds by 368 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ("The [EMIT] results were positive for both cocaine and amphetamines.").

2013Somers v. State, 333 S.W.3d 747, 753 (Tex.App.-Waco 2010) ("As previously discussed, the EMIT test was positive for cocaine, but the confirmation [GCMS] test was negative.”), overruled on other grounds by 368 S.W.3d 528, 530 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) ("The [EMIT] results were positive for both cocaine and amphetamines.").

2012Harrison v. Dahm, 911 F.2d 37, 41-42 (8th Cir.1990) (holding that a single, uncorroborated EMIT test is admissible in a prison disciplinary setting). .

2012Harrison v. Dahm , 911 F.2d 37, 41-42 (8th Cir. 1990) (holding that a single, uncorroborated EMIT test is admissible in a prison disciplinary setting). 50.

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ("an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect's exact blood alcohol content"); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ("an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect's exact blood alcohol content"); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ("an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect's exact blood alcohol content"); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2010See Youens v. State, 988 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.) ("an officer trained in administering the HGN test may give his opinion that a suspect is under the influence of alcohol, but may not testify to that suspect's exact blood alcohol content"); Fernandez v. State, 915 S.W.2d 572, 576 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.) (portable breath test evidence admissible to establish presence of alcohol but not alcohol concentration).

2012Id. at 756 (citing multiple cases, including Harmon v. Auger, 768 F.2d 270 (8th Cir.1985) (EMIT test results are 95% accurate and form a sufficient basis for disciplinary action)). .

2012Id . at 756 (citing multiple cases, including Harmon v. Auger , 768 F.2d 270 (8th Cir.1985) (EMIT test results are 95% accurate and form a sufficient basis for disciplinary action)). 48.

2012App. 1988); Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753 (8th Cir.1986); Jensen v. Lick, 589 F.Supp. 35 (D.N.D.1984); Peranzo v. Coughlin, 675 F. Supp. 102 (continued...) SOMERS — 11 twelve cases, courts addressed the admissibility of drug testing evidence in prison disciplinary and parole revocation hearings.15 In most of the cases, courts addressed the reliability of EMIT testing directly and concluded that EMIT test results were sufficiently reliable for admission into evidence.

2012In Jensen v. Lick, a federal district court in North Dakota held that a prison official could impose sanctions on a prisoner based upon a single, unconfirmed, positive EMIT test.56 The court noted that the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta had found EMIT test results to be 97-99% accurate.57 The court also cited a claim by the manufacturers of the EMIT test equipment that “testors can act with a 95% confidence in the accuracy of the result,” and noted that “as used, the 95% statistical figure, in the field of science and medicine, is recognized to mean almost complete certainty.”58 The cou

2012See also Petition of Johnston, 109 Wash.2d 493 , 745 P.2d 864 (1987) (single positive EMIT test result “clearly provides some evidence” of drug use); Wykoff v. Resig, 613 F.Supp. 1504 (N.D.Ind.1985) (a positive EMIT test confirmed by a second EMIT test or its equivalent satisfies due process); Jones-Heim v. Reed, 241 Fed.Appx. 359 (9th Cir.2007) (not designated for publication) ("Courts reviewing the evidentiary value of drug tests have repeatedly held that EMIT meets due process standards ... [fjurther, courts have specifically found that EMIT demonstrates the necessary ‘indicia of reliabilit

2012See also Petition of Johnston, 109 Wash.2d 493 , 745 P.2d 864 (1987) (single positive EMIT test result “clearly provides some evidence” of drug use); Wykoff v. Resig, 613 F.Supp. 1504 (N.D.Ind.1985) (a positive EMIT test confirmed by a second EMIT test or its equivalent satisfies due process); Jones-Heim v. Reed, 241 Fed.Appx. 359 (9th Cir.2007) (not designated for publication) ("Courts reviewing the evidentiary value of drug tests have repeatedly held that EMIT meets due process standards ... [fjurther, courts have specifically found that EMIT demonstrates the necessary ‘indicia of reliabilit

2012App. 1991). 67 250 Ga. 438 , 298 S.E.2d 482 (1983). 68 Id. at 440 (citing Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 , 292 S.E.2d 389 ). 69 Id. 70 Id. at 439-40. 71 Id. at 440.

2012App. 1991). 67 250 Ga. 438 , 298 S.E.2d 482 (1983). 68 Id. at 440 (citing Harper v. State, 249 Ga. 519 , 292 S.E.2d 389 ). 69 Id. 70 Id. at 439-40. 71 Id. at 440.

2012App. 2003) (Keller, P.J., concurring)). 18 Id. at 758. 19 Id. at 758-59 (citing Kirsch v. State, 306 S.W.3d 738, 743 (Tex. Crim.

2012In Driver v. State, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the positive results of two routine double EMIT tests conducted on two separate occasions were sufficiently reliable for use in prison disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate’s alleged use of controlled substances.62 The court cited expert testimony from a research toxicologist with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, also an inspector for the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, who testified that EMIT testing equipment was considered to be 95% accurate.63 The court also cited Spence and all the cases cited therein, as we

2012In Driver v. State, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the positive results of two routine double EMIT tests conducted on two separate occasions were sufficiently reliable for use in prison disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate’s alleged use of controlled substances.62 The court cited expert testimony from a research toxicologist with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, also an inspector for the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, who testified that EMIT testing equipment was considered to be 95% accurate.63 The court also cited Spence and all the cases cited therein, as we

2012SOMERS — 24 sufficiently reliable and admissible in prison disciplinary hearings.77 A few years later, in Anderson v. McKune, the same Kansas Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s holding that ONTRAK test results were admissible only with a GC/MS confirmation test.78 As in Crutchfield, the court supported the conclusion that ONTRAK test results are reliable and admissible by citing cases from other jurisdictions that had found EMIT test results to be reliable.79 Similarly, in Penrod v. State, an Indiana Court of Appeals upheld the admission of ADx drug test results in a parole revocation h

2012App. 1988); Spence v. Farrier, 807 F.2d 753 (8th Cir.1986); Jensen v. Lick, 589 F.Supp. 35 (D.N.D.1984); Peranzo v. Coughlin, 675 F. Supp. 102 (continued...) SOMERS — 11 twelve cases, courts addressed the admissibility of drug testing evidence in prison disciplinary and parole revocation hearings.15 In most of the cases, courts addressed the reliability of EMIT testing directly and concluded that EMIT test results were sufficiently reliable for admission into evidence.

2012In Driver v. State, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the positive results of two routine double EMIT tests conducted on two separate occasions were sufficiently reliable for use in prison disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate’s alleged use of controlled substances.62 The court cited expert testimony from a research toxicologist with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, also an inspector for the National Institutes on Drug Abuse, who testified that EMIT testing equipment was considered to be 95% accurate.63 The court also cited Spence and all the cases cited therein, as we

2012SOMERS — 19 unconfirmed, positive EMIT test did not sufficiently establish drug use and that, under the Eighth Circuit’s holding in Spence, the EMIT test satisfies due process only when confirmed by a second test.49 The Eighth Circuit rejected this argument and stated: “While the EMIT test at issue in Spence was confirmed by a second test, we do not read our holding so narrowly . . . given that Spence does not require a second test, and given the established and recognized reliability of the test, it is not a due process violation to fail to administer a second test.”50 In another federal appe

2012SOMERS — 19 unconfirmed, positive EMIT test did not sufficiently establish drug use and that, under the Eighth Circuit’s holding in Spence, the EMIT test satisfies due process only when confirmed by a second test.49 The Eighth Circuit rejected this argument and stated: “While the EMIT test at issue in Spence was confirmed by a second test, we do not read our holding so narrowly . . . given that Spence does not require a second test, and given the established and recognized reliability of the test, it is not a due process violation to fail to administer a second test.”50 In another federal appe