National survey findings on law enforcement agency drug response practices, overdose victim outcomes, and Good Samaritan Laws.

BACKGROUND: The United States continues to experience unprecedented rates of overdose mortality. Addressing the overdose epidemic has been challenging for policy makers given the lack of effectiveness of existing drug control policy measures. More recently, the implementation of harm reduction-based policies such as Good Samaritan Laws has led to increasing scholarly attention aimed at evaluating their effectiveness at reducing the likelihood of criminal justice-related sanctions for individuals following an overdose incident. The results of these studies, however, have been mixed. METHODS: This study utilizes data from a nationally representative survey of law enforcement agencies designed to provide national information on services, policies, practices, operations, and resources of law enforcement drug response around overdoses to assess whether state Good Samaritan Laws reduce the likelihood of overdose victims being cited or being jailed following an overdose incident. RESULTS: In general, findings indicate that although most agencies reported that overdose victims were not incarcerated or cited following an overdose incident, that this did not vary by whether agencies were in a state that had a GSL arrest protection for possession of controlled substances. CONCLUSIONS: GSLs are often written in complex and confusing language that officers and people who use drugs do not fully understand, which may deter their being used for their intended purpose. Although GSLs are well-intentioned, these findings highlight the need for training and education for law enforcement and people who use drugs around the scope of these laws.

A national survey of law enforcement post-overdose response efforts.

Background: Law enforcement agencies in the US have provided naloxone to officers and developed initiatives to follow-up after a non-fatal overdose. However, the prevalence and characteristics of these efforts have yet to be documented in research literature.Objectives: We sought to understand the national prevalence of naloxone provision among law enforcement and examine the implementation of post-overdose follow-up.Methods: We administered a survey on drug overdose response initiatives using a multimodal approach (online and mail) to a nationally representative sample of law enforcement agencies (N = 2,009; 50.1% response rate) drawn from the National Directory of Law Enforcement Administrators database. We further examine a subsample of agencies (N = 1,514) that equipped officers with naloxone who were also asked about post-overdose follow-up.Results: We found 81.7% of agencies reported officers were equipped with naloxone; among these, approximately one-third (30.3%) reported follow-up after an overdose. More than half (56.8%) of agencies indicated partnership in follow-up with emergency medical services as the most common partner (68.8%). There were 21.4% of agencies with a Quick Response Team, a popular national post-overdose model, and were more likely to indicate partnership with a substance use disorder treatment provider than when agencies were asked generally about partners in follow-up (74.5% and 26.2% respectively).Conclusion: Many law enforcement agencies across the US have equipped officers with naloxone, and about one-third of those are conducting follow-up to non-fatal overdose events. Post-overdose follow-up models and practices vary in ways that can influence treatment engagement and minimize harms against persons who use drugs.

Perspectives from law enforcement officers who respond to overdose calls for service and administer naloxone.

BACKGROUND: Many law enforcement agencies across the United States equip their officers with the life-saving drug naloxone to reverse the effects of an opioid overdose. Although officers can be effectively trained to administer naloxone, and hundreds of law enforcement agencies carry naloxone to reverse overdoses, little is known about what happens on scene during an overdose call for service from an officer's perspective, including what officers perceive their duties and responsibilities to be as the incident evolves. METHODS: The qualitative study examined officers' experiences with overdose response, their perceived roles, and what happens on scene before, during, and after an overdose incident. In-person interviews were conducted with 17 officers in four diverse law enforcement agencies in the United States between January and May 2020. RESULTS: Following an overdose, the officers described that overdose victims are required to go to a hospital or they are taken to jail. Officers also described their duties on scene during and after naloxone administration, including searching the belongings of the person who overdosed and seizing any drug paraphernalia. CONCLUSION: These findings point to a pressing need for rethinking standard operating procedures for law enforcement in these situations so that the intentions of Good Samaritan Laws are upheld and people get the assistance they need without being deterred from asking for future help.

Association between law enforcement seizures of illicit drugs and drug overdose deaths involving cocaine and methamphetamine, Ohio, 2014-2019.

BACKGROUND: The United States continues to experience a crisis of mounting opioid overdose deaths involving cocaine and methamphetamine (hereafter illicit stimulants). Law enforcement drug seizure data present a unique opportunity to examine the association between illicit-stimulant-involved overdose deaths (ISODs) and the illicit drug supply. Our objective is to better understand correlations between illicit drug market trends and increases in ISODs in Ohio in 2014-2019. METHODS: This observational study analyzes the universe of ISODs and drug seizures in Ohio from 2014 to 2019. We use graphs and descriptive statistics to characterize trends over time and estimate a time series model of their association. ISODs were summed to yield monthly statewide counts of seizures containing methamphetamine, cocaine, illicitly manufactured fentanyl (IMF), and other non-IMF opioids (e.g., heroin). All rates were calculated per 100,000 persons. RESULTS: Roughly 80% of ISODs in Ohio from 2014 to 2019 involved an opioid, with IMF co-occurring in 90% of ISODs by 2019. Methamphetamine and cocaine seizures containing IMF were associated with 0.439 (p < .01) and 0.457 (p < .01) additional deaths per 100,000 persons per month, respectively. IMF seizures not containing cocaine nor methamphetamine were also associated with additional ISODs (0.119, p < .01) and seizures of illicit stimulants not containing IMF were not associated with ISODs. CONCLUSIONS: The number of ISODs was extremely high when IMF was co-involved and relatively low without IMF involvement. By demonstrating how supply-side trends correspond with ISOD rates, the current study bolsters the analytical utility of law enforcement seizures and complements growing literature in the field.

The Association of Traumatic Brain Injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and criminal recidivism.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to assess the prevalence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and to determine whether TBI or PTSD is associated with an increase in general or violent criminal recidivism among a representative sample of released prisoners. In-person interviews were conducted with a stratified random sample of individuals incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of Corrections approximately 90 days prior to the prisoners' releases. In addition to a variety of items and scales, respondents were screened for TBI and were asked whether they had received a current diagnosis of PTSD. Data were merged with arrest data that provided measures of past criminal involvement and indicators of post-release recidivism (arrest). Arrests were coded as "general" for any arrest charge and "violent" for any violent offense charge. RESULTS: Survival analyses indicate that neither TBI nor PTSD predicts time to general recidivism. PTSD (p < 0.01) and age at first arrest (p < 0.01) are significant predictors for violent recidivism and TBI is non-significant at p = 0.09. Results from the negative binomial models indicate that TBI (p < 0.05) and PTSD (p < 0.05) are significantly associated with more post-release violent arrests, but not general arrests. CONCLUSIONS: TBI and PTSD were found to predict violent offending but not general criminal behavior. These findings demonstrate the need for prison officials to identify individuals with a history of TBI and PTSD and to develop appropriate interventions that could be provided during incarceration to reduce the post-release likelihood of violence.