Dale A Rutledge | PubMed Health

PubMed2003

Nystagmus testing in intoxicated individuals.

BACKGROUND: Law enforcement officers routinely conduct psychophysical tests to determine if an impaired driver may be intoxicated or in need of medical assistance. Testing includes assessment of eye movements, using the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) and Vertical Gaze Nystagmus (VGN) tests, which are conducted at roadside by patrol officers. These tests previously have been validated when the subject is placed in a standing posture with head upright. However, certain conditions require that the subject be tested while seated or supine. Under these conditions, Positional Alcohol Nystagmus (PAN) could be induced and mistaken for HGN or VGN. METHODS: The study was conducted at law enforcement training academy alcohol workshops in the Pacific Northwest. Ninety-six volunteer drinkers were tested when sober and three times after drinking alcohol by 40 volunteer officers experienced in administering the tests. Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was measured objectively with a calibrated breath analysis instrument each time a subject was tested. RESULTS: The number of eye movement signs observed during the HGN test at any posture increases with increasing BAC. The presence of VGN at any test posture occurs only in the presence of signs of HGN and only at high levels of impairment. PAN was most often observed at BACs of 0.08% and higher, but was never confused with the observation of HGN or VGN, regardless of test posture. CONCLUSIONS: The HGN test administered in the standing, seated, and supine postures is able to discriminate impairment at criterion BACs of 0.08% and 0.10%. The VGN test can identify high levels of impairment at any test posture. Therefore, these tests can be used by an officer to determine if a driver is impaired, regardless of whether the driver is standing, seated, or supine.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Drug recognition expert evaluations made using limited data.

The Drug Evaluation Classification (DEC) Program is used by Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) officers to determine whether a suspect is under the influence of a drug or drugs at the time of arrest, and, if so, what category of drug(s). The goal of this project was to investigate the relative importance of face-to-face interactions with the suspect, physical evidence (drugs or paraphernalia found), and confessions/statements made by the suspect (or others) in making these determinations. Seventy records of DRE evaluations were selected from a database containing information from all evaluations conducted in Oregon between 1996 and 1998. Each of the 70 records represented a suspect who had either taken a drug from one of four categories (CNS depressant, CNS stimulant, narcotic analgesic, or cannabis) or who had not taken a drug. To be included, the original DRE evaluation and the subsequent toxicology analysis had to agree that the suspect was under the influence of a drug from one of the four categories or not under the influence of a drug. Records from the 70 cases were submitted in written form to 18 Oregon DREs with statements made by suspects or arresting officers, confessions, toxicology results, and descriptions of drugs or paraphernalia found on the suspect omitted. Based only on the written reports of direct observations, and with physiological and psychophysical test results, the DREs attempted to determine whether each of the 70 suspects was under the influence of a drug or drugs, and, if so, what category of drug(s). If the officers determined that a suspect was under the influence of a drug, their accuracy in specifying the drug category was 81% for cannabis, 94% for narcotic analgesics, 78% for CNS stimulants, and 69% for CNS depressants. Overall accuracy in recognizing drug intoxication was 95%. These percentages indicate that although face-to-face interactions, physical evidence, and confessions/statements can be useful adjuncts to DRE decision-making, the majority of drug category decisions can be made solely on the basis of recorded suspect observations and DRE evaluation results.

Humans↗