Thursday, April 5, 2012

Role of the "Matrix" in the DRE Program

The issue of the "Matrix" was significant in Judge Galloway's Maryland vs. Brightful, et al. opinion.

The "DRE Matrix" is a common focus of questioning by both prosecutors and defense attorneys in court. In my opinion and experience, defense attorneys in particular attempt to attach far too much weight to this simple tool.

The so-called "Matrix" is simply a reference tool, a chart, that the Drug Recognition Expert officer may refer to before, during, or subsequent to conducting an evaluation. The "Matrix" is also known as a "Drug Influence Signs and Symptoms" chart, or simply a "Drug Use Indicators" chart. It's analogous to the Periodical Table of Elements that a physicist may hang on the office wall, a chart of the human skeletal system that a physician may refer to, or a sentencing guideline chart that a judge may use.

The typical "Matrix" consists of headings across the top - the horizontal plane - of the seven DRE drug categories. The far left column vertically lists specific categories of effects, such as pupil size, vital signs, HGN, vertical gaze nystagmus, lack of convergence, and other behavioral effects. Some matrices include lists of specific substances included within a category of drug, normal ranges of vital signs and pupil size, methods of administration, and more. A so-called "completed Matrix" lists the expected effects by drug category. For example, in the box under the Central Nervous System Depressant heading, and to the right of HGN, the words "present" would be placed.

The "Matrix" was initially developed by retired LAPD Motorcycle Officer C. Doug Laird in the mid-1980's. Officer Laird was one of the four LAPD officers who participated in the landmark Johns Hopkins study of the DRE program in 1984. Doug created a chart solely to help him remember and separate the various signs and symptoms of the drug categories. Many other officers developed their own version of this reference chart. It wasn't until the early to mid-1990's that DRE students were taught to complete a matrix chart during the classroom phase of DRE training.

(For many years, I resisted supplying DRE students with ready made matrices of drug signs and symptoms. I was concerned that students would memorize a chart, rather than fully understand and commit to memory the material of the course. However, over time, many students entered DRE training with charts given to them by DRE's, certainly with the intention of preparing them for the rigorous DRE training. Unfortunately, many of those charts contained inaccuracies - still true to this day!)

Currently, student DRE's periodically complete matrices from memory during the DRE school, including during the certification phase of training.

The "Matrix" is a reference tool and nothing more. The "Matrix" doesn't make the decision of impairment or determine the drug-category for the officer. The DRE simply references the matrix to refresh his or her memory, and to make sure that he/she didn't overlook the involvement of other drugs. The "Matrix" contains only a very small portion of the information that the DRE student is expected to master. And of course the "Matrix" teaches nothing about the skills and attitude (affective domain of learning) that a DRE must master.

7 comments:

  1. what a load of horse manure! The Matrix is the Drug Recognition Evaluator's bible. And I love how the word evaluator was changed to Expert because officers thought it sounded more professional. I remember DRT when the T was for Technician but the officers thought Evaluator sounded better.

    I did have to laugh when you compared the Matrix to the scientific, medical and judicial charts. The only part of you writing I agree with is that the Matrix is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I suppose some students in the course quit, but none fail. There is in fact nothing to fail if this explanation is to be believed. Essentially he is saying that the officer's judgment should not be questioned based on any objective facts. DREs know nothin about medical conditions, medications, have no definition of impairment other than someone who can't stand on one leg or demonstrate two of eight "clues" on a walk and turn "test," neither of which have any relationship to impairment, driving OR drugs. All of this is admitted by the creators of SFSTs. No moral or intellectually honest person could be a cop under these circumstances. We neglect to pay or respect cops and therefore the profession is full of bottom feeders with guns who make judgments based on rudimentary education. Scary scenerio.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Having been exposed to the DRE "protocol" and then watching the same officers testify that portions of the protocol do not need to be observed before making their "expert" opinion, I find it hard to believe that this can be considered credible evidence in a court of law. 5 years from now when enough judges and prosecutors find out what sham this "evaluation" truly is, I wonder what dog and pony show will be used to justify arrests with insufficient evidence. DRE is just a joke and an excuse for a law enforcement officer to have another BS "certification". It is not science. It does not resemble science and the results are even less accurate than flipping a coin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is 5 years since your post and we are still using the same DRE protocol. I have been using the same protocol since 1995 with great success.

      Delete
  4. When you look up DRE on the internet it comes back as: Digital Rectal Exam. Thank's about what this amounts to...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I respect the need for police officers to attempt to identify impaired drivers. Medications as well as illegal drugs can lead to crashes just like alcohol. That being said, society cannot settle for allowing police officers to come into to court and pass their conclusory suspicions off as science. Science is based on laws and principles, and standards for the application of those laws and principles. Mr. Page's comments about the DRE matrix prove the very point that the the DRE scheme is not science. The police say this 12 step scheme provides scientifically reliable results. But we see here they say, "Well, but if we don't have all 12 results, an officer's opinion is still reliable. ... Well, if some of the indicators are inconsistent, the officer's opinion is still reliable. ... Well, if we only have one or two, and if an officer renders an opinion that a driver is impaired on drugs, let's go with that... it must be reliable, after all, he's an expert!"
    People, I hope we have learned something in the last 400 years since the Salem witch trials. Mr. Page wants the world to believe police officers "master" drug identification after this DRE class, as if their keen senses and street-smart intuition are independent of the objective indices of the matrix. It sounds as though it is just a happy coincidence if the matrix supports the officer's opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The ACLU is suing based on this non scientific coupled with unqualified Officers performing “Medical Examinations” on the side of the road, which has sent many Innocent individuals to jail. Hopefully, it costs many jurisdictions millions and Officers their jobs.
    As you know as it’s been investigated, PD have lied and covered up arrests to protect inadequately trained Officers....”Experts”...it’s just feeding their already huge Egos.

    ReplyDelete