Effective Police Report Writing, Tip #7

Statements are not necessarily admissions. Alibis aren't necessarily true.

It certainly comes as no surprise to police officers that suspects, arrestees, and defendants don't always tell the truth - even to the police. Sometimes, individuals will falsely "admit" to using something to a DRE, such as marijuana, even though the individual is clearly under the influence of a different type of drug. The suspect might believe that "admitting" to marijuana use (after all, it's medicine, right?) doesn't look as bad as admitting to PCP or crack use. Rather than writing in a report that "The suspect admitted to using marijuana," the officer should write that the "Suspect stated he used marijuana." Saying the suspect admitted to something suggests that the officer believed the person. The same principle applies to other investigations, including crash reconstructions. For example, I recall a report in which the officer wrote "The driver caught his left foot between the brake pedal and the accelerator." Well, there was no evidence of this other than the suspect's self-serving words. The real reason for the crash was the suspect's methamphetamine use. In this case, the officer would have been better off, and more accurate, by simply stating that "The driver claimed that he caught..."

LAPD celebrates 100th anniversary of first policewoman

We celebrate Patricia Berry Russell!

The LAPD is currently celebrating the 100th anniversary of its first policewoman. One of the pioneers of woman in law enforcement is our own Patricia (Patty) Berry Russell.  This picture is of Patty at her police academy graduation in 1967. In the 1970's, Patty was required to go back through the police academy in order to become certified to work the field as an LAPD Police Officer. For much of her career, Patty worked traffic enforcement/accident investigation.  Early on, she became deeply involved in the Department's Drug Recognition Program.  In fact, Patty was one of the four LAPD officers who participated in the landmark 1984 Johns Hopkins study.  In addition, the pupilometer, that included the  HGN angle chart, was developed and marketed by Patty.  Many of us remember the early pupilometers as the "Berry Good Ruler." Patty retired from the LAPD in 1992.  Her last assignment was as Training Coordinator for the Drug Recognition Expert Unit.  Without Patty's contributions, the DRE program might never have reached the level of professionalism it has.

TIME report on Prescription Drug Problem

The September 13, 2010 issue of TIME magazine contains an interesting overview of the growing problem of prescription drug abse. "The New Drug Crisis: Addiction by Prescription," by Jeffrey Kluger, says that the current prescription drug use epidemic, called "pharmageddon" by one expert, began in the 1990s with revised policies of the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The new JCAHO policies encouraged health care professionals to aggressively treat pain. At the same time, big drug companies began introducing new opioids for the treatment of pain. The third leg of this proverbial three-legged stool was the Federal Trade Commission's determination to allow advertising directly to consumers. Anyone who watches the nightly network news is bombarded with drug advertisements that end with "Ask your doctor if this drug is right for you."

The article also gives a very nice overview of Oxycontin's effect on the brain:

"The brain loves Oxycontin - the way the drug lights up the limbic system, with cascading effects through the ventral striatum, midbrain, amygdala, orbitofrontal cortex and prefrontal cortex, leaving pure pleasure in its wake. What the brain loves, it learns to crave."

According to the article, annual U.S. opioid consumption per person has increased from 73 mg in 1996, to 329 mg in 2006.

Historically, U.S. opiate epidemics are followed by stimulant epidemics. I wonder what the future holds for us.

Effective Police Report Writing, Tip #6

Spelling Counts!

Professionals should know how to correctly spell and pronounce the technical words of their profession. You wouldn't give much credibility to a physician who incorrectly spelled body parts, nor would you give much credibility to a scientist who couldn't pronounce scientific terms. To a large degree, the prosecutor, the defense attorney, the judge and even the jury judge you by not only the completeness of your report, but also your ability to write clearly and correctly. The defense will often highlight errors of spelling in reports by enlarging the report, and having the officer circle the errors. As an example, I saw a defense attorney do this by having the DRE officer highlight in red the "word" Cannabus on the report. I guarantee you that the DRE will never forget that Cannabis is NOT a bus!

Defense attack on lack of injured in 173 Case Study

Recently, a Drug Recognition Expert officer was questioned in a deposition about aspects of the Los Angeles Field Validation Study, commonly referred to as the 173 Case Study. (Since this case is on-going, I will not divulge the specifics of the case.)

In this case, the defendant was injured, resulting in the DRE not being able to administer the complete 12 step evaluation. Nonethess, the DRE was able to form an opinion which was subsequently supported by toxicology. The defense challenged the DRE's testimony by pointing out that injured suspects were excluded from the 173 Case Study. In addition, the defense also pointed out that only blood was taken in the 173 Case Study. The prosecution expects the defense to attempt to have the DRE testimony excluded at trial, by arguing that the DRE evaluation was never intended to be performed on injured suspects.


In 1985, I was loaned to the LAPD's Traffic Coordination Section for the specific purpose of assisting in the development of the protocol (the steps) and the training of the officer-participants in this study. The Los Angeles Field Validation Study (later known as the 173 Case Study) was designed to assess the abilities of DREs, in a field (as opposed to laboratory setting) setting, using a step-by-step protocol, to determine if an individual was under the influence of drugs, and the specific category (s) of drug (s). The toxicological portion of study's design required blood draws. The sponsors of the study, primarily NHTSA, but also the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and researchers, decided to to use only blood as the toxicological confirmation specimen. (Ideally, if cost, time, and logistics weren't factors, we would also have taken urine, saliva, and even hair samples.) The sponsors and researchers also wanted to limit any interference with this purpose. Thus, we needed people who could perform the DRE evaluation without delay. Injured suspects obviously needed to have their injuries treated, often resulting in a delay, as well as compromised ability to perform some of the psycho-physical tasks. Also, as part of treatment for injuries, patients often are given other drugs.

No study can study everything. Although the 173 Case Study was limited in its scope, as all studies are, it was never intended to suggest that DRE assessments shouldn't be done on injured crash victims. Two additional points: First, the expertise of DRE comes from the trained officer, NOT the procedure (12 steps). The 12 steps are a tool to help the officer reach his/her opinion. Secondly, as I teach, testify, and have written, a DRE may be able to reach a supportable opinion of drug-influence even though the individual may not have been able to perform all parts of the evaluation. However, this NOT does entitle the officer to have a so-called lower standard of evidence to reach his/her opinion.

Finally, I suggest that all DREs reaquaint themselves with the 173 Case Study before they testify.

New stimulant being marketed directly to the public

The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, published by The Medical Letter, Inc., of New Rochelle, New York, is a twice monthly nonprofit publication. I rely (and have relied for about twenty-five years) on this publication for accurate and unbiased information on pharmaceuticals.

The August 9, 2010 issue reports that the non-amphetamine stimulant armodafinil (brand name Nuvigil by Cephalon) is being promoted directly to to the public for excessive daytime sleepiness related to shift work. Armodafinil is related to modafinil (Provigil), which was approved by the FDA in 1988 for treatment of excessive sleepiness associated with narcolepsy. Modafinil is also used to treat excessive sleepiness caused by other conditions. There have been media reports that modafinil is being used by college students to stay awake, as well as by military personnel to endure lengthy missions.

Interestingly, The Medical Letter reports that the mechanism of action of armodafinil or modafinil to counter excessive sleepiness is unknown.

In clinical studies, common adverse side effects include nausea, dizziness, insomnia, and headache.

The Medical Letter cites reports of euphoria and illicit use of modafinil by students. The Letter states that armodafinil and modafinil increase dopamine levels in the brain, including the nucleus accumbens, and that drugs that increase dopamine in this part of the brain have a potential of abuse.

Armodafinil is a Schedule IV drug.

Frankly, I expect a certain portion of the population to seek out armodafinil and modafinil for not only their therapeutic benefits in treating excessive sleepiness, but for euphoric effects. After all, as DREs know, what can be used, can be abused.

Effective Police Report Writing, Tip#5

It's impossible to accurately predict which case will go to trial.

Los Angeles Deputy City Attorney Rosemary Chavez has prosecuted Driving Under the Influence of Drugs defendants for twenty years. She also teaches in the LAPD's Drug Recognition Expert school, as well as in the related Impaired Driver Apprehension (IDA) course.

In Rosemary's experience, cases you would think would go to trial, often don't, usually because the defendant pleads to the charge. The converse is also true, in that it's not uncommon for apparently strong cases to unexpectedly go to trial. Rosemary's point is that your DUI arrest report should thoroughly document all the elements of the offense, including the three phases of DUI detection, and the drug influence evaluation, if any.

Rosemary also reminds officers that "You can't ever not do your job." A comprehensive, accurate, and descriptive report is part of your job.