Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 2525 (2026)

Drug impairment assessment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Submission to test required. If a drug recognition expert has probable cause to believe that a person is under the influence of a specific category of drug, a combination of specific categories of drugs or a combination of alcohol and one or more specific categories of drugs, that person must submit to a blood or urine test selected by the drug recognition expert to confirm that person's category of drug use and determine the presence of the drug.

[PL 2011, c. 335, §14 (AMD).]

2. Admissibility of evidence. If a law enforcement officer certified as a drug recognition expert by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy conducts a drug impairment assessment, the officer's testimony about that assessment is admissible in court as evidence of operating under the influence of intoxicants. Test results showing a confirmed positive drug or metabolite in the blood or urine are admissible as evidence of operating under the influence of intoxicants. Failure to comply with any provision of this section does not, by itself, result in the exclusion of evidence of test results, unless the evidence is determined to be not sufficiently reliable.

[PL 2011, c. 335, §14 (AMD).]

3. Payment for tests. A person authorized to take specimens of blood at the direction of a law enforcement officer or to perform tests on specimens of blood or breath must be paid from the Highway Fund.

[PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (NEW); PL 1993, c. 683, Pt. B, §5 (AFF).]

4. Repeal.

[PL 1995, c. 145, §2 (RP).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1993, c. 683, §A2 (NEW). PL 1993, c. 683, §B5 (AFF). PL 1995, c. 145, §2 (AMD). PL 2011, c. 335, §14 (AMD).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: State v. Moulton, 1997 ME 228 (Me. 1997).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Moulton, 1997 ME 228 (Me. 1997). · cites it 3× “The court overruled her objection, finding that 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2525 (1996) authorized admission of Ballard’s HGN testimony, notwithstanding the absence of any showing of reliability.”

State of Maine v. Bradley R. Atkins, 2015 ME 162 (Me. 2015). · cites it 2× “[¶ 14] Atkins argues that the statutes addressing drug recognition experts, 29-A M.R.S. §§ 2525 and 2526, require that, when a defendant charged with OUI is alleged to have been intoxicated- by a substance other than alcohol, the testimony of a drug recognition expert is…”

State v. Baity, 140 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2000). “1 (Supp 1999); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 29-A, §§ 2525, 2526 (West 1996).”

State of Maine v. James A. Green, 2024 ME 44 (Me. 2024). “Moreover, according to 29-A M.R.S. § 2525(2) (2024), [i]f a law enforcement officer certified as a drug recognition expert by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy conducts a drug impairment assessment, the officer’s testimony about that assessment is admissible in court as…”

State of Maine v. Wilson (Me. Super. Ct 2017). · cites it 2× “29-A M.R.S. §§2525 and 2526. See also State v.”

State of Maine v. Weare (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “29-A M.R.S. § 2525(1) directs operators of vehicles to submit to a blood or urine test if a Drug Recognition Expe1i has probable cause to believe that the operator of a vehicle is under the influence of a drug.”

Witham v. Bd. of Trs. for the Maine Crim. Just. Academy (Me. Super. Ct 2021). “§ 1057(5) here, Atkins contended only testimony of a drug recognition expert, pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. § 2525 and 2526, could be used to prove Atkins was under the influence of drugs.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 2525(1) — 2 cases

State of Maine v. Weare (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “29-A M.R.S. § 2525(1) directs operators of vehicles to submit to a blood or urine test if a Drug Recognition Expe1i has probable cause to believe that the operator of a vehicle is under the influence of a drug.”

State of Maine v. Wilson (Me. Super. Ct 2017). “29-A M.R.S. §§2525 and 2526. See also State v.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A, § 2525(2) — 2 cases

State v. Moulton, 1997 ME 228 (Me. 1997). “The court overruled her objection, finding that 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2525 (1996) authorized admission of Ballard’s HGN testimony, notwithstanding the absence of any showing of reliability.”

State of Maine v. James A. Green, 2024 ME 44 (Me. 2024). “Moreover, according to 29-A M.R.S. § 2525(2) (2024), [i]f a law enforcement officer certified as a drug recognition expert by the Maine Criminal Justice Academy conducts a drug impairment assessment, the officer’s testimony about that assessment is admissible in court as…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.