Wagner and Minick on the Law Radio program. Discussion regarding the Drug Recognition Expert Program and procedures. I am the guest on this show. Original broadcast in August, 2016.
https://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/94379/drug-recognition-for-dui-arrests
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Tips FOR prosecutors!
A short while ago I was asked by an experienced prosecutor if I could share a few tips for prosecutors from an expert witnesses point of view. It took only a few minutes to come up with the following suggestions. I plan to add to these in the future.
A short while ago I was asked by an experienced prosecutor if I could share a few tips for prosecutors from an expert witnesses point of view. It took only a few minutes to come up with the following suggestions. I plan to add to these in the future.
1) Listen to the expert, and don't just follow a script! If I wasn't clear, ask me to explain.
2) Remember that we're nervous too! Make sure we have a full glass of water. Say good morning (or afternoon) to us after we've been sworn in. This gives us a chance to clear our throat and relax a little.
3) Review our curriculum vitae. There's a good chance we've had other jobs, careers, military service, have volunteered in our communities, that show we are rounded individuals who don't rush to judgement!
4) If you ask questions like an attorney, we'll respond like a cop!! So talk like a human being! Example: If you ask "After exiting your vehicle, what did you then proceed to do?" we'll probably say something like: "Subsequent to exiting my vehicle, and having deactivated the emergency overhead lights, I approached ......"
5) Listen to us on cross-examination! If we respond to the defense attorney that "I can't answer yes or not. I need to explain." And if the defense attorney doesn't ask us to explain, you should!!
6) Do a thorough direct. Without a cross, there's no re-direct. In November of 2012, I testified in a Frye hearing on DRE in an east coast state. After the direct, the FOUR defense attorneys got up one after the other and said: "I have no questions for Mr. Page." The defense attorneys told me later that they had read all of my prior testimony, and were not about to allow me to explain! This is the second time that's happened.
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Courtroom as a Classroom.
I'd like to elaborate a bit on how and why I believe it's useful think of the courtroom as a classroom.
The Expert Witness is a teacher.
In this "courtroom as classroom" analogy, the expert witness, such as a DRE, is the teacher. Good teachers, whether in an actual classroom or on the witness stand, share much in common. They are knowledgeable about their subject matters. At the same time, however, they don't claim to know everything. They'll also admit when they are wrong. Good teachers don't come across as arrogant. Rather, they may seem somewhat humble. They may even appear a bit nervous. After all, testifying in court is a form of public speaking. The good teacher is enthusiastic about his/her subject matter, and enjoys explaining the intricacies of the topic. The good teacher knows how to pronounce and spell the technical terms of his/her expertise. The good teacher explains rather than dictates, making the complicated seem somewhat simple. The good teacher in the courtroom also shows respect and a bit of deference to the others, even to the court reporter.
The Jury members are the students.
The expert witness teaches the jurors, the courtroom's "students." But unlike students in a college course, or a law enforcement course such as DRE, the courtroom's students didn't sign up for the course! They were ordered to put their work aside, their families, and their other interests to attend this "course." Furthermore, the students may be ordered not to talk about the "class," may not be allowed to "take notes," and may not even know how long the "class" will last! For all of this inconvenience, they receive a very small amount of compensation to cover some of the travel costs. We should be thankful that most members of our society take jury duty seriously. Likewise, we should never disparage a jury by remarking that they were "too stupid" to get off jury duty.
The best prosecutors ask questions from the jury's point of view.
In my experience, the best prosecutors ask questions that the members of the jury would like to ask. It's almost as if the jury members chose one person to ask questions on their behalf, a "designated juror." These prosecutors ask the expert witness to explain procedures, such as the SFST's. They ask the expert witness why they do certain procedures in a specified way. They also talk like a regular citizen, and avoid "copese." An example of a "copese" question is: "Subsequent to activating your overhead emergency lights, did you effect a traffic stop?"
The defense attorney tries to testify.
During the cross examination of an expert witness, such as a DRE, the defense attorney basically testifies, and asks the witness to agree or disagree. To do this, the defense attorney asks leading questions, that usually require a yes or no answer. A simple, but recurring, question that DRE's often encounter is "You're not a medical doctor, are you?" A simple question requiring a "yes" or "no." Defense attorneys also frequently start a question - again, an attempt to testify - by saying "It's fair to say..." I alert whenever I hear a question that starts with the "fair to say" phrase. Because almost always, it's NOT "fair to say." Usually it's a gross oversimplification of a complicated issue. And I have often answered, "No sir, it's not fair to say."
A couple guidelines:
Answer "Yes" or "No" if you can. Ask to "explain" if you must. But never answer "Yes, but..." The good defense attorney will stop you by thanking you for answering the question. Hopefully, the prosecutor will ask you to explain on redirect.
The judge is the referee.
The role of the judge is similar to the role of a sports referee. The judge makes sure that the rules of law are followed, that everyone gets a fair chance to present his/her version of the case, and that the proceeding stays on schedule.
The Expert Witness is a teacher.
In this "courtroom as classroom" analogy, the expert witness, such as a DRE, is the teacher. Good teachers, whether in an actual classroom or on the witness stand, share much in common. They are knowledgeable about their subject matters. At the same time, however, they don't claim to know everything. They'll also admit when they are wrong. Good teachers don't come across as arrogant. Rather, they may seem somewhat humble. They may even appear a bit nervous. After all, testifying in court is a form of public speaking. The good teacher is enthusiastic about his/her subject matter, and enjoys explaining the intricacies of the topic. The good teacher knows how to pronounce and spell the technical terms of his/her expertise. The good teacher explains rather than dictates, making the complicated seem somewhat simple. The good teacher in the courtroom also shows respect and a bit of deference to the others, even to the court reporter.
The Jury members are the students.
The expert witness teaches the jurors, the courtroom's "students." But unlike students in a college course, or a law enforcement course such as DRE, the courtroom's students didn't sign up for the course! They were ordered to put their work aside, their families, and their other interests to attend this "course." Furthermore, the students may be ordered not to talk about the "class," may not be allowed to "take notes," and may not even know how long the "class" will last! For all of this inconvenience, they receive a very small amount of compensation to cover some of the travel costs. We should be thankful that most members of our society take jury duty seriously. Likewise, we should never disparage a jury by remarking that they were "too stupid" to get off jury duty.
The best prosecutors ask questions from the jury's point of view.
In my experience, the best prosecutors ask questions that the members of the jury would like to ask. It's almost as if the jury members chose one person to ask questions on their behalf, a "designated juror." These prosecutors ask the expert witness to explain procedures, such as the SFST's. They ask the expert witness why they do certain procedures in a specified way. They also talk like a regular citizen, and avoid "copese." An example of a "copese" question is: "Subsequent to activating your overhead emergency lights, did you effect a traffic stop?"
The defense attorney tries to testify.
During the cross examination of an expert witness, such as a DRE, the defense attorney basically testifies, and asks the witness to agree or disagree. To do this, the defense attorney asks leading questions, that usually require a yes or no answer. A simple, but recurring, question that DRE's often encounter is "You're not a medical doctor, are you?" A simple question requiring a "yes" or "no." Defense attorneys also frequently start a question - again, an attempt to testify - by saying "It's fair to say..." I alert whenever I hear a question that starts with the "fair to say" phrase. Because almost always, it's NOT "fair to say." Usually it's a gross oversimplification of a complicated issue. And I have often answered, "No sir, it's not fair to say."
A couple guidelines:
Answer "Yes" or "No" if you can. Ask to "explain" if you must. But never answer "Yes, but..." The good defense attorney will stop you by thanking you for answering the question. Hopefully, the prosecutor will ask you to explain on redirect.
The judge is the referee.
The role of the judge is similar to the role of a sports referee. The judge makes sure that the rules of law are followed, that everyone gets a fair chance to present his/her version of the case, and that the proceeding stays on schedule.
Monday, April 2, 2012
HGN and Driving Impairment
Maryland vs. Brightful et al.
In pondering how to address the questions and issues raised by Judge Galloway in the recent Maryland DRE case (Maryland vs. Brightful et al), I came to the realization that Judge Galloway didn't identify any new issues. I have been asked questions about these very issues in past cases and hearings, including "Frye," "Daubert," and similar hearings. Thus, I will try to comment as I have (and will) in court. Of course, witnesses aren't allowed to give a speech in court; rather witnesses answer questions. But sometimes, the questions are so broad that they require a fairly lengthy narrative.
To illustrate, my two favorite questions - questions I have actually been asked - required lengthy answers. Question 1: "What are the drugs of abuse and what are their effects?" Anticipating an objection by the defense ("Objection, calls for a narrative"), I paused before answering. When no objection was raised, I asked the judge if I could use write on the court's whiteboard. "Go right ahead" said the Judge. I put on a mini-DRE course! Took about an hour. Question 2: "What procedure do you use to determine if an individual is under the influence of drugs?" Again, with the judge's permission, I wrote out the 12 step procedure, explaining step by step. Even explained the so-called "normal ranges" of pupil size and vital signs. Again, I put on a mini-DRE course.
(As an aside, my least favorite question was asked by a defense attorney, again in a DRE admissibility hearing: "Now these 7 categories of drugs you just talked about...is this a list of the drugs you personally have abused?" When the prosecutor didn't object but giggled instead, I tuned to the judge and very politely said, "Your honor, can I object?" The judge replied, "No, but I will." Obviously, the defense attorney insulted me in an attempt to goad me into losing my cool. It didn't work.)
In court, the expert witness, such as a DRE, is a teacher. And the best teachers, whether in college, the police academy, or DRE school, make the complicated simple and understandable. They explain rather than dictate. (The best teachers also know how to pronounce and spell the words of their profession!)
The issue of HGN and driving impairment was brought up in the Maryland case. In my opinion, HGN, in the person who doesn't have it naturally (I've seen 2 people with HGN unrelated to alcohol or drug use.), is a temporary dysfunction of the person's visual tracking system. As we know, the sober person's eyes normally track smoothly from side to side without any visible jerking. But how does this relate to driving? This is how I generally have explained it in court.
In order to properly conduct the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the subject is admonished to not move his/her head while following the stimulus as it moves from side to side. Although it varies from person to person, in my experience, most people at a .15 BAC are not able to deviate their eyes and keep their head fixed. Their eyes move and their head follows. In order to compensate for this, we may have the person hold his/her chin with the hands, put the back of his/her head against a wall, or even hold a flashlight under the person's chin to keep it from moving. Usually, these measures are unsuccessful. The person just can't move the eyes without moving his/her head. As the alcohol level goes up, the angle at which the person moves his head, in effect to catch up with the eyes, occurs earlier.
In everyday conversation, people move their eyes about 45 degrees. Imagine two officers talking to a citizen. The citizen doesn't move his/her head like a bobble-head doll, or an infant for that matter, from one officer to the other. The citizen moves his eyes. Beyond 45 degrees, however, the person moves his head. If the person can't deviate the eyes 45 degrees before moving the head, there's a good chance that person is under the influence of alcohol or other nystagmus-causing drug. And SFST practitioners know the significance of the 45 degree angle.
Obviously, a person needs to see in order to drive. Furthermore, a driver needs to be able to keep the vehicle in the proper lane while being aware of hazards, other vehicles, exits, etc. that may intrude on the roadway. The driver (at least the sober one) continually moves his/her eyes and head from side to side while maintaining proper lane position, speed, distance from other vehicles and more. Truly, driving is a divided attention task.
The alcohol and/or drug-impaired driver has a decreased ability to divide and shift attention from one thing to other. We certainly assess this impaired divided attention when we administer the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, including HGN. As I discussed a few paragraphs ago, a person with HGN has a decreased ability to keep his/her head facing forward while looking (gazing) to the side. As a result, the person turns his/her head. In effect, the person looks to the side. If the person is driving, and his/her attention is distracted from the road by, for instance, a police officer conducting an enforcement stop, the driver will look to the side. After all, that's why police cars have high visibility lighting - to get someone's attention.
It's a basic principle of motorcycle operator training that you should "look where you want to go." The converse of this is that you will "go where you are looking." So, to avoid a road hazard, motorcycle riders are taught to look for the safe route around the road hazard. Again, look where you want to go, not at what you are trying to avoid. This principle applies to cars, trucks, and even bicycles. This principle also applies to sober as well as impaired drivers.
Sober drivers, however, are usually able to maintain proper lane position while quickly looking to the side. In fact, the sober driver may not move his/her head, but just the eyes. On the other hand the impaired driver - the driver with alcohol and/or drug induced HGN - may not be able to move the eyes to the side while keeping the head straight. The impaired driver may turn his/her head to the side, and drive in that direction. Again, the impaired driver may "go" where he/she is looking. And too frequently, this results in the impaired driver driving into an existing crash investigation, or a police vehicle with lights flashing. You go where you look.
In pondering how to address the questions and issues raised by Judge Galloway in the recent Maryland DRE case (Maryland vs. Brightful et al), I came to the realization that Judge Galloway didn't identify any new issues. I have been asked questions about these very issues in past cases and hearings, including "Frye," "Daubert," and similar hearings. Thus, I will try to comment as I have (and will) in court. Of course, witnesses aren't allowed to give a speech in court; rather witnesses answer questions. But sometimes, the questions are so broad that they require a fairly lengthy narrative.
To illustrate, my two favorite questions - questions I have actually been asked - required lengthy answers. Question 1: "What are the drugs of abuse and what are their effects?" Anticipating an objection by the defense ("Objection, calls for a narrative"), I paused before answering. When no objection was raised, I asked the judge if I could use write on the court's whiteboard. "Go right ahead" said the Judge. I put on a mini-DRE course! Took about an hour. Question 2: "What procedure do you use to determine if an individual is under the influence of drugs?" Again, with the judge's permission, I wrote out the 12 step procedure, explaining step by step. Even explained the so-called "normal ranges" of pupil size and vital signs. Again, I put on a mini-DRE course.
(As an aside, my least favorite question was asked by a defense attorney, again in a DRE admissibility hearing: "Now these 7 categories of drugs you just talked about...is this a list of the drugs you personally have abused?" When the prosecutor didn't object but giggled instead, I tuned to the judge and very politely said, "Your honor, can I object?" The judge replied, "No, but I will." Obviously, the defense attorney insulted me in an attempt to goad me into losing my cool. It didn't work.)
In court, the expert witness, such as a DRE, is a teacher. And the best teachers, whether in college, the police academy, or DRE school, make the complicated simple and understandable. They explain rather than dictate. (The best teachers also know how to pronounce and spell the words of their profession!)
The issue of HGN and driving impairment was brought up in the Maryland case. In my opinion, HGN, in the person who doesn't have it naturally (I've seen 2 people with HGN unrelated to alcohol or drug use.), is a temporary dysfunction of the person's visual tracking system. As we know, the sober person's eyes normally track smoothly from side to side without any visible jerking. But how does this relate to driving? This is how I generally have explained it in court.
In order to properly conduct the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test, the subject is admonished to not move his/her head while following the stimulus as it moves from side to side. Although it varies from person to person, in my experience, most people at a .15 BAC are not able to deviate their eyes and keep their head fixed. Their eyes move and their head follows. In order to compensate for this, we may have the person hold his/her chin with the hands, put the back of his/her head against a wall, or even hold a flashlight under the person's chin to keep it from moving. Usually, these measures are unsuccessful. The person just can't move the eyes without moving his/her head. As the alcohol level goes up, the angle at which the person moves his head, in effect to catch up with the eyes, occurs earlier.
In everyday conversation, people move their eyes about 45 degrees. Imagine two officers talking to a citizen. The citizen doesn't move his/her head like a bobble-head doll, or an infant for that matter, from one officer to the other. The citizen moves his eyes. Beyond 45 degrees, however, the person moves his head. If the person can't deviate the eyes 45 degrees before moving the head, there's a good chance that person is under the influence of alcohol or other nystagmus-causing drug. And SFST practitioners know the significance of the 45 degree angle.
Obviously, a person needs to see in order to drive. Furthermore, a driver needs to be able to keep the vehicle in the proper lane while being aware of hazards, other vehicles, exits, etc. that may intrude on the roadway. The driver (at least the sober one) continually moves his/her eyes and head from side to side while maintaining proper lane position, speed, distance from other vehicles and more. Truly, driving is a divided attention task.
The alcohol and/or drug-impaired driver has a decreased ability to divide and shift attention from one thing to other. We certainly assess this impaired divided attention when we administer the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, including HGN. As I discussed a few paragraphs ago, a person with HGN has a decreased ability to keep his/her head facing forward while looking (gazing) to the side. As a result, the person turns his/her head. In effect, the person looks to the side. If the person is driving, and his/her attention is distracted from the road by, for instance, a police officer conducting an enforcement stop, the driver will look to the side. After all, that's why police cars have high visibility lighting - to get someone's attention.
It's a basic principle of motorcycle operator training that you should "look where you want to go." The converse of this is that you will "go where you are looking." So, to avoid a road hazard, motorcycle riders are taught to look for the safe route around the road hazard. Again, look where you want to go, not at what you are trying to avoid. This principle applies to cars, trucks, and even bicycles. This principle also applies to sober as well as impaired drivers.
Sober drivers, however, are usually able to maintain proper lane position while quickly looking to the side. In fact, the sober driver may not move his/her head, but just the eyes. On the other hand the impaired driver - the driver with alcohol and/or drug induced HGN - may not be able to move the eyes to the side while keeping the head straight. The impaired driver may turn his/her head to the side, and drive in that direction. Again, the impaired driver may "go" where he/she is looking. And too frequently, this results in the impaired driver driving into an existing crash investigation, or a police vehicle with lights flashing. You go where you look.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Breathalyzer for Drugs? Not possible!
The January 30, 2012 USA Today contained a short article in which Sens. Schumer of New York and Pryor of Arkansas suggest increasing funding to develop a breathalyzer type device to test for drugs. Here's my letter to the USA Today in response.
Dear Editor:
No Breathalyzer for drugs
The holy grail of drugged-driving enforcement is, as Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Mark Pryor of Arkansas stated, a "...breathalyzer-like technology..." to identify individuals who drive under the influence of non-alcohol drugs.
For many reasons, it's extremely unlikely that such a device will ever be available. Breathalyzer-type instruments test only for alcohol. The impairing drugs of abuse, however, are many. They include illicit drugs like PCP, marijuana, LSD, and heroin, along with legitimate pharmaceuticals like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, and others), opiates (Oxycodone, hydrocodone, and others), and even non-drugs such as paint and other volatile solvents that are "huffed." And if that doesn't complicate the issue enough, drug users are poly-drug users. This means that they use more than one drug at the same time. Often, one of the drugs is alcohol. It's also important to realize that there many non-drug causes of driving impairment. These non-drug causes include fatigue, dementia, and a host of medical conditions ranging from stroke to uncontrolled diabetes.
The key to effective drugged-driving enforcement is the well-trained police officer who can recognize and document impairment from any cause. The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, trains selected officers to become Drug Recognition Experts (DRE's). These officers, approximately 7000 in the U.S. and Canada, use a step-by-step procedure to determine if a driver is impaired, and that the impairment is due to drugs rather than a medical condition. This program and procedure, which was created by Los Angeles Police Department officers in the 1980's, has been scientifically validated, and has been accepted in many courts throughout the United States.
I welcome any efforts to expand the availability of DRE officers. These officers are truly the front-line in combating drug-impaired driving.
Thomas E. Page
Drug Recognition Expert Emeritus
Retired, Los Angeles Police Department
Dear Editor:
No Breathalyzer for drugs
The holy grail of drugged-driving enforcement is, as Sens. Charles Schumer of New York and Mark Pryor of Arkansas stated, a "...breathalyzer-like technology..." to identify individuals who drive under the influence of non-alcohol drugs.
For many reasons, it's extremely unlikely that such a device will ever be available. Breathalyzer-type instruments test only for alcohol. The impairing drugs of abuse, however, are many. They include illicit drugs like PCP, marijuana, LSD, and heroin, along with legitimate pharmaceuticals like the benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, and others), opiates (Oxycodone, hydrocodone, and others), and even non-drugs such as paint and other volatile solvents that are "huffed." And if that doesn't complicate the issue enough, drug users are poly-drug users. This means that they use more than one drug at the same time. Often, one of the drugs is alcohol. It's also important to realize that there many non-drug causes of driving impairment. These non-drug causes include fatigue, dementia, and a host of medical conditions ranging from stroke to uncontrolled diabetes.
The key to effective drugged-driving enforcement is the well-trained police officer who can recognize and document impairment from any cause. The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, supported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, trains selected officers to become Drug Recognition Experts (DRE's). These officers, approximately 7000 in the U.S. and Canada, use a step-by-step procedure to determine if a driver is impaired, and that the impairment is due to drugs rather than a medical condition. This program and procedure, which was created by Los Angeles Police Department officers in the 1980's, has been scientifically validated, and has been accepted in many courts throughout the United States.
I welcome any efforts to expand the availability of DRE officers. These officers are truly the front-line in combating drug-impaired driving.
Thomas E. Page
Drug Recognition Expert Emeritus
Retired, Los Angeles Police Department
Monday, January 30, 2012
Symposium on Marijuana "reform" at Wayne State University
This past Friday, January 27, 2012, I attended the National and State Marijuana Reform Symposium hosted by Wayne State University's (Detroit) School of Law. Predictably, and not surprisingly, in my estimation all of the presenters (with one exception) and most of the attendees (200 plus) were in favor of the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana. Without going into detail, a couple of the speakers mocked former first lady Nancy Reagan's "Just say no" advice to those who try to avoid using drugs. A number of the speakers blamed "cops, prosecutors, and judges" for our country's drug problem. One speaker, a pharmacy professor AND lawyer, actually told the audience to "Just say Yes to drugs." Nonetheless, there was one speaker who had a contrary (refreshing?) point of view. That speaker was Kevin Sabet, Ph.D. Kevin Sabet is a drug policy consultant. He served as a senior adviser to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy from 2009 to 2011. He currently is a professor at the University of Florida's School of Medicine. I had the good fortune to introduce myself and to chat with Dr. Sabet. He was aware and supportive of the DRE approach to drugged-driving.
Here are a few of the points that Dr. Sabet made during his presentation. As an aside, many of Dr. Sabet's comments were met with derisive catcalls and comments from the other speakers and the audience. I clapped!
No modern nation has legalized marijuana. Pointed out that legalization is an extreme solution to the drug problem. Contrary to popular belief, Dr. Sabet said that it's very rare for people to be imprisoned for simple marijuana possession.
Dr. Sabet said that Alcohol and tobacco are in fact frightening examples of what can happen with legalization.
Legalization will increase use of marijuana. For many, the fact that marijuana is illegal helps to discourage (and prevent in some cases) use.
Legalization wouldn't eliminate the black market. Raising taxes will increase the likelihood of a black market.
Increased revenue from taxing marijuana wouldn't be offset by the increase in social and economic costs. In fact, Dr. Sabet pointed out that so-called "Vice taxes" rarely offset cost. Again, Dr. Sabet used the costs associated with legalized alcohol as a "frightening" example.
Dr. Sabet said that there are many ways to reduce incarceration rates (and associated costs) without legalizing drugs. He used the example of drug (and sobriety) courts, and other programs that focus on both compassion AND accountability as alternatives to legalization.
Finally, Dr. Sabet said that that although marijuana isn't as dangerous as smoking cocaine or heroin, it still is a harmful substance. (In my opinion, the costs to our society are greater with marijuana, simply because of its prevalence.)
Here are a few of the points that Dr. Sabet made during his presentation. As an aside, many of Dr. Sabet's comments were met with derisive catcalls and comments from the other speakers and the audience. I clapped!
No modern nation has legalized marijuana. Pointed out that legalization is an extreme solution to the drug problem. Contrary to popular belief, Dr. Sabet said that it's very rare for people to be imprisoned for simple marijuana possession.
Dr. Sabet said that Alcohol and tobacco are in fact frightening examples of what can happen with legalization.
Legalization will increase use of marijuana. For many, the fact that marijuana is illegal helps to discourage (and prevent in some cases) use.
Legalization wouldn't eliminate the black market. Raising taxes will increase the likelihood of a black market.
Increased revenue from taxing marijuana wouldn't be offset by the increase in social and economic costs. In fact, Dr. Sabet pointed out that so-called "Vice taxes" rarely offset cost. Again, Dr. Sabet used the costs associated with legalized alcohol as a "frightening" example.
Dr. Sabet said that there are many ways to reduce incarceration rates (and associated costs) without legalizing drugs. He used the example of drug (and sobriety) courts, and other programs that focus on both compassion AND accountability as alternatives to legalization.
Finally, Dr. Sabet said that that although marijuana isn't as dangerous as smoking cocaine or heroin, it still is a harmful substance. (In my opinion, the costs to our society are greater with marijuana, simply because of its prevalence.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
