In Bragaw v. State, 482 P.3d 1023 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021), the court of appeals held that trial courts must consider the validity of drug recognition evaluation (DRE) evidence under the Daubert standard for admissibility. (Id. at 1032). Bragaw was arrested for driving under the influence and completed a DRE, which led troopers to determine that she had used central nervous system depressants and stimulants. (Id. at 1025). A blood test showed that Bragaw consumed a central nervous system depressant, but not a central nervous system stimulant. (Id. at 1025). At trial, the lower court did not apply the Daubert standard to determine the scientific validity of the DRE method and prohibited Bragaw from providing expert testimony that criticized DRE’s reliability. (Id. at 1030, 1026). The jury convicted Bragaw of felony driving under the influence (Id. at 1024). The court of appeals held that the lower court erred by failing to apply the Daubert standard to the DRE evidence and excluding expert testimony criticizing the DRE evidence. (Id. 1032). The court of appeals reasoned that the Daubert standard applied because DRE evidence is scientific, and Bragaw’s expert testimony should have been admitted because the defense always has a right to present expert testimony critiquing the State’s scientific evidence. (Id. at 1030–31). The court of appeals found that these errors were not harmless because discussion of the DRE evidence took up a significant amount of time at trial and was central to the State’s case, making it likely that the jury would view the evidence as valid. (Id. at 1032). Reversing the lower court’s decision, the court of appeals held that trial courts must subject drug recognition evaluation (DRE) evidence to the Daubert standard for admissibility. (Id. at 1032).