File

DRE Training v. Lawyer Training
Lenny 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
Stimulants
Depressants
Cannabis
PCP
Narcotics
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Cannabis
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
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
Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses
Corroboration
Accuracy
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
Study
Bigelow
Heishman ‘96
PCP
Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses
Corroboration
Accuracy
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
Study
Bigelow
Heishman ‘96
Heishman ’98
Shinar
Hardin
Smith
All Classes
Sensitivity Specificity False Alarm Misses
Corroboration
Accuracy
35.6
59.3
40.7
64.4
62.7
43.7
Shinar
72
43
57
28
71
62
Compton
70.4
92.6
7.4
29.6
78.6
86.5
79.7
65.5
34.4
20.2
96.8
78.7
Study
Bigelow
Heishman ‘96
Heishman ’98
Pruesser
Hardin
Smith
The End
Work Hard, Play Hard,
Love Hard, Pray Hard.