WOODLAND, CA – Deputy District Attorney Aloysius Patchen, here in Yolo County Superior Court on Wednesday, conceded California Highway Patrol officers failed to conduct a Narcotic Identification System (NIK) test to identify the alleged drugs found during a driving under the influence/DUI stop.
However, he objected to Deputy Public Defender Danielle Craig’s argument the accused should not be held to answer for drug possession charges because there was “no evidence.”
But, Judge Catherine Hohenwarter ruled in favor of DPD Craig, prompting DDA Patchen to assert he would refile the accused’s entire case with the District Attorney’s Office.
The accused is charged with two felonies for possession of hard drugs with prior convictions and three misdemeanors for driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, possession of a controlled substance and possession of a narcotic controlled substance.
According to testimony from the arresting officer, California Highway Patrol Officer Douglas Able, on Jan. 4, 2025, at approximately 2:37 a.m., the accused was pulled over and a standard DUI investigation was conducted by Officer Able and his California Highway Patrol (CHP) partner.
When asked about any use of controlled substances, the accused allegedly told officers “the last time that he used” any substance, specifically highlighting fentanyl, was “two days ago.”
On direct examination, DDA Patchen noted a “small plastic container” was “recovered from (the accused’s) jacket” at the scene.
On the stand, officer Able noted the container held a “white chalky substance” which, according to him, was “consistent with fentanyl,” based, he said, on his field training and experience.
The accused was booked into the Yolo County Jail and was searched by a Yolo County Correctional Officer, who allegedly “retrieved a small Ziploc baggie containing a white crystalline substance” from the accused’s jacket pocket.
Officer Able asserted the substance in the baggie “appeared” to be methamphetamine because of the “appearance and the way that it was packaged in a Ziploc bag,” and indicated it was typical for “personal use.”
DPD Craig noted to the court she had recognized multiple issues in the prosecution’s case against the accused and DDA Patchen’s argument, citing “holding order issues…probable cause issues” and possibly even 17(b) issues,” noting that if probable cause was found, DPD Craig would argue for a reduction from a felony to misdemeanor charge(s).
“I would ask the court to not hold (the accused) to answer on any of the alleged charges,” DPD Craig stated, adding, “I don’t believe there’s been any testimony before this court that tested any of the substances that were found and positively identified them as a controlled substance.”
After submitting on Count Three for the misdemeanor DUI charge, DPD Craig addressed Counts One and Two, noting, “There is no evidence before the court that what was found on (the accused’s) person or in his vehicle was an actual controlled substance which is a requirement for any of the charges relating to possession.”
After DDA Patchen admitted that no “NIK test,” commonly used by law enforcement officers to identify controlled substances in the field or further drug testing, was done by CHP or the Department of Justice to confirm the chemical compounds of the substances found on the accused.
Patchen objected to DPD Craig’s arguments, noting the accused made it “clear about the kind of drug he uses, “which he argued was enough for the court to hold the accused on all counts.
During closing remarks, DPD Craig DDA Patchen’s argument was “bootstrapping the testimony of these officers…The fact is, officers in the field have the opportunity to test drugs and the irony of the need to test those drugs is that one cannot, regardless of their experience, determine from the naked eye whether or not a certain item is a chemical compound.”
Addressing the low probable cause threshold that all preliminary hearings have, DPD Craig cited Bridgeforth v. Superior Court, which exhibited the need for “Expeditious dismissal of groundless or unsupported charges thereby avoiding a waste of scarce public resources.”
Referencing Bridgeforth and noting the lack of evidence in this case for probable cause in the preliminary hearing, DPD Craig concluded, “California Highway Patrol has now had two months to test these substances, to confirm whether or not they are a controlled substance. And they have not bothered to do that.”
Addressing DDA Patchen’s arguments that the officer’s field training and expertise were evidence enough to determine possession of a controlled substance, DPD Craig noted that just stating a substance was “likely a drug” is not a valid explanation.
“At the end of the day, you cannot say just by observation with a naked eye what a substance is which is why these tests are in place,” said the public defender.
Ultimately siding with the defense, Judge Hohenwarter agreed the accused would not be held to answer on Counts 1, 2, 4 and 5, and would only be held on the DUI charge.
Upon hearing this, DDA Patchen decided to dismiss all five counts and said he was going to refile the accused’s entire case.
The accused will remain out of custody on Supervised Own Recognizance (SOR) and will appear back in court on March 19 for his arraignment if and after DDA Patchen refiles the case.
