1 / 28

Development and Effectiveness of the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program

Learn about the origin and evolution of the Drug Evaluation and Classification program, research validating its effectiveness, impact of legal precedents, and more. Explore the topics for study at the end of the session.

lspellman
Download Presentation

Development and Effectiveness of the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Session 3 50 Minutes Development and Effectiveness of the Drug Evaluation and Classification Program

  2. Learning Objectives • State the origin and evolution of the Drug Evaluation and Classification program • Describe research and demonstration project results that validate the effectiveness of the program • State the impact of legal precedents established by case law • Correctly answer the "topics for study" questions at the end of this session

  3. LAPD Developed DRE

  4. LAPD Developed DRE (Cont.)

  5. LAPD Developed DRE (Cont.)

  6. LAPD and NHTSA • Developed and validated a battery of Standardized Field Sobriety Tests for alcohol impaired driving • By the early 1980’s NHTSA began to assist LAPD in validating the DRE program

  7. Three-Step Drug Evaluation Process • Establish that the subject is impaired • Rule out medical impairment • Determine the category of drugs involved

  8. Three-Step Drug Evaluation Process (Cont.) • Establish that the subject is impaired • Rule out medical impairment • Determine the category of drugs involved

  9. Three-Step Drug Evaluation Process (Cont.) • Establish that the subject is impaired • Rule out medical impairment • Determine the category of drugs involved

  10. Two Stages of Validation Laboratory Validation Study • Johns Hopkins University Field Validation Study • Los Angeles

  11. Laboratory Validation Study Laboratory Validation Study Johns Hopkins University

  12. Laboratory Validation Study (Cont.) Laboratory Validation Study Johns Hopkins University

  13. Laboratory Validation Study (Cont.) Laboratory Validation Study Johns Hopkins University

  14. Laboratory Study Results • DRE officers correctly identified 95% of drug-free subjects as "unimpaired" • DRE officers classified 98.7% of high-dose subjects as "impaired"

  15. Laboratory Study Results (Cont.) • Correctly identified the category of drugs for 91.7% of high-dose subjects • DRE officers were less successful in classifying low-dose subjects • 17.5% of d-amphetamine impaired • 32.5% of weak marijuana impaired

  16. Field Validation Study Los Angeles 173 drivers arrested for DUI-Drugs • None involved in crashes • 28 DREs participated • Excluded all cases where no blood sample obtained

  17. Field Validation Study (Cont.)Los Angeles Blood tests confirmed: • One suspect had no drugs or alcohol • 10 had alcohol only • 37 (21%) had one drug • 82 (47%) had two drugs • 43 (25%) had three or more drugs

  18. Field Validation Study (Cont.)Los Angeles Blood tests confirmed the presence of at least one “predicted” category of drugs for more than 90% of the suspects

  19. Confirmation Rates for Specific Categories 92%: Phencyclidine (PCP) 85%: Narcotic Analgesics 78%: Cannabis 50%: CNS Depressants

  20. Confirmation Rates for Specific Categories (Cont.) 33%: CNS Stimulants

  21. Case Law Review “Frye” Standard “Is the procedure or principle espoused, accepted by the relevant scientific community?”

  22. Case Law Review (Cont.) “Daubert” Standard • Shows reliability before scientific evidence can be admitted

  23. Case Law Review (Cont.) “Frye” Standard • Arizona v Johnson • Washington v Baity • Minnesota v Klawitter • Colorado v Hernandez

  24. Case Law Review (Cont.) “Daubert” Standard • New Mexico v Aleman • Nebraska v Cubrich

  25. HGN Case Law Arizona v Blake

  26. HGN Case Law (Cont.) Arizona v Blake

  27. QUESTIONS?

  28. Topics for Study

More Related