dre training v. lawyer training - weebly · lawyer training •peter gerstenzang –ncdd summer...

DRE Training v. Lawyer TrainingLenny Stamm & Ron Moore

Officer Training

• LAPD / NHTSA developed

• Using NHTSA sponsored research

• Administered by IACP

• Directed toward convictions

• By Police for Police

• Pre-school, School, Validation period,

• Officer keeps log of exams

Lawyer Training

• By Experienced Lawyers and Scientists

• Uses full range is available research

• Directed toward just resolution of cases

• Ongoing

Lawyer Training

• Peter Gerstenzang – NCDD Summer 2004

• Jim Nesci – NACDL Las Vegas 2005

• Jim Nesci – NCDD Tucson 2007

• Doug Murphy – TCDLA Dallas 2008

Strategies

• There are many…

• Take advantage of your training

• Use your knowledge of the science against them

This study evaluated and compared the data

presented in four laboratory studies and four field studies,

in six categories of officer performance.

Grading Criteria

• TP = True Positive– DRE (+) Tox (+)

• FP = False Positive– DRE (+) Tox (-)

• TN = True Negative– DRE (-) Tox (-)

• FN = False Negative– DRE (-) Tox (+)

• Sensitivity TP / (TP + FN)– How likely a drug (+) driver will be DRE (+)

• Specificity TN / (TP + FN)– How likely a drug (-) driver will be DRE (-)

• False Alarm FP / (TP + FN)– How likely a drug (-) driver will be DRE (+)

• Miss Rate FN / (TP + FN)– How likely a drug (+) driver will be DRE (-)

• Corroboration Rate TP / (TP + FP)– How often DRE (+) is Tox (+)

• Accuracy Rate (TP + TN) / ( TP + FP + TN + FN)– How often DRE (+) is Tox (+) and DRE (-) is Tox (-)

DEC Categories

StimulantsDepressantsCannabisPCPNarcoticsInhalantsHallucinogens

Study Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses Corroboration Accuracy

Bigelow 48.8 92.7 7.3 52.2 92.9 63.6

Heishman ‘96 53.1 61.1 38.9 46.9 70.8 56.0

Heishman ’98 30.4 59.1 40.9 69.6 60.9 39.7

Shinar 49 69 31 51 42.9 41.7

Compton 59.7 86.4 13.3 40.3 78 74.6

Pruesser 78.4 73.2 26.7 21.6 68.4 75.4

Hardin 93.8 82.6 17.4 6.2 91.8 90.1

Smith 80.5 76.6 23.3 19.5 94.2 79.9

Cannabis

Stimulants

Study Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses Corroboration Accuracy

Bigelow 20.0 86.4 13.6 80.0 72.7 43.5

Heishman ‘96 13.2 61.1 38.9 86.1 41.4 29.6

Heishman ’98 4.2 79.2 20.8 95.8 28.6 29.2

Shinar 10 91 9 90 36.7 41.1

Compton 19.0 94.7 5.3 81.0 33.3 85.5

Pruesser 57.4 84.9 15.1 42.6 68.0 75.1

Hardin 37.5 94.5 5.4 62.5 66.7 81.6

Smith 77.8 84.3 15.7 84.3 96.0 78.9

Depressants

Study Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses Corroboration Accuracy

Bigelow 74.2 84.4 15.6 25.8 92.7 77

Heishman ‘96 41.7 55.6 44.4 58.3 65.2 46.3

Heishman ’98 27.1 62.5 37.5 72.9 59.1 38.9

Shinar 47 80 20 53 30.6 39.1

Compton 73.7 90.9 9.1 26.3 50.0 89.0

Pruesser 68.6 86.4 13.6 31.4 48.2 83.6

Hardin 69.2 91.4 8.6 30.8 64.3 87.3

Smith 68.9 93.7 6.3 31.1 97.7 73.9

Narcotics

Study Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses Corroboration Accuracy

Bigelow

Heishman ‘96

Heishman ’98 14.9 82.6 17.4 85.1 63.6 37.1

Shinar 45 72 28 55 7.8 31.4

Compton 65.4 97.9 2.1 34.6 85.0 93.1

Pruesser 75.9 94.3 5.7 24.1 67.3 91.9

Hardin 66.7 90.3 9.7 33.3 50.0 87.3

Smith 94.0 83.1 16.9 6.0 94.4 91.3

PCP

Study Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses Corroboration Accuracy

Bigelow

Heishman ‘96

Heishman ’98

Shinar

Compton 90.7 89.5 10.5 9.3 91.7 90.2

Pruesser 75.3 98.4 1.6 24.7 70.5 97.2

Hardin

Smith

All Classes

Study Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses Corroboration Accuracy

Bigelow

Heishman ‘96 35.6 59.3 40.7 64.4 62.7 43.7

Heishman ’98

Shinar 72 43 57 28 71 62

Compton 70.4 92.6 7.4 29.6 78.6 86.5

Pruesser

Hardin

Smith 79.7 65.5 34.4 20.2 96.8 78.7

Work Hard, Play Hard, Love Hard, Pray Hard.

The End