Monica Dycus v. State of Indiana, 90 N.E.3d 1215

Monica Dycus was stopped after alleged aggressive driving; officers smelled marijuana, observed erratic driving, and found a green leafy substance in her mouth. She admitted smoking marijuana an hour earlier.
Officer Winter (DRE-certified) performed a 30-minute Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) and concluded Dycus was impaired by marijuana; Dycus consented to a blood draw.
Blood samples were collected, sealed, passed through IMPD property/ISDT, and outsourced to National Medical Services (NMS), which reported Delta-9 THC at 3.0 ng/ml.
Dycus was charged with OWI endangering (Class A misdemeanor) and a separate count for controlled substance presence; the jury convicted her and the trial court later vacated the controlled-substance count.
At trial Dycus objected to: (1) admission of ISDT chain-of-custody/shipping forms on Confrontation Clause grounds, and (2) admission of the DRE results for lack of a Pirtle advisement (failure to advise of right to counsel before consenting to search). The court admitted the evidence and she was convicted.
On appeal the Court of Appeals (Riley, J.) affirmed admissibility of the chain-of-custody documents but held that a Pirtle advisement is required before a custodial DRE; failure to give that advisement rendered Dycus’s consent invalid and the DRE evidence inadmissible, requiring reversal and a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ISDT chain-of-custody forms are testimonial and inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	State: forms document transfers and are non-testimonial records created to track evidence, not to prove guilt; testing analyst testified and was cross-examined	Dycus: the formalized chain documents are extrajudicial testimonial statements identifying and vouching for sample integrity, so live testimony was required	Court held forms were non-testimonial in these circumstances and their admission did not violate Confrontation Clause
Whether police must give a Pirtle advisement (right to consult counsel) before obtaining consent to a DRE from a person in custody	State: DRE is non-intrusive, narrow, and unlike the unlimited searches that trigger Pirtle; thus no advisement required	Dycus: DRE is a prolonged, quasi-medical, body-cavity-including evaluation akin to an unlimited search, so Pirtle advisement is required for valid consent	Court held a custodial DRE is sufficiently intrusive that a Pirtle advisement is required; failure to advise invalidated consent and DRE evidence was inadmissible; error was not harmless, so conviction reversed and case remanded for new trial

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009) (certificates of forensic analysis are testimonial and analysts are witnesses for Sixth Amendment purposes; but not everyone who handled evidence must testify)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011) (prosecution must produce the analyst who made the certification; surrogate testimony about a lab report can violate Confrontation Clause)
Speers v. State, 999 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. 2013) (no Confrontation Clause violation where testing analyst testified despite gaps in chain of custody; gaps go to weight, not admissibility)
Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975) (under Indiana Constitution, a person in custody must be informed of right to consult counsel before consenting to a search)
Garcia-Torres v. State, 949 N.E.2d 1229 (Ind. 2011) (Pirtle applies only to weighty intrusions; minimal intrusions like buccal swabs do not require Pirtle advisement)