2022 Syndromic Surveillance Symposium

This Basecamp is the event space for the 2022 Syndromic Surveillance Symposium, December 6-8 from 12:30PM EST to 5PM EST. Learn more about upcoming sessions, how to join different rooms, and view presentations. Email (symposiumsupport@cste.org) if you have any issues with the site.

Use of naloxone by law enforcement

I am pretty new to knowledge about the opioid epidemic. It is crazy to think some police don't want to carry naloxone, though we carry other things like activated charcoal for misuse of intended and unintended poisonings. 

But I do want to learn more about police attitudes and what is behind those that don't want to carry it, and how syndromic surveillance data has helped change these attitudes. 

I also acknowledge that police may be responding to opioid activity multiple times a day and that many can turn violent. I used to work in HIV, and this kind of black humor is somewhat prevalent. We have to acknowledge those who feel a lack of progress in things can turn pessimistic. 

Comments & Events

Daniel Neill, New York University
Thanks Deen for sharing these thoughts! I’ve worked and interacted with enough city police departments over the years to learn a few things:

a) Not every department cares about population health, or equity, the way they should (this is usually dependent on departmental culture as it is passed down the ranks from the chief…)

b) For those that do, it still takes a lot of training for officers to develop the proper skills they need;

and c) Even with the best of intentions, both police-community mistrust and poor state and local policy choices can really confound our efforts.

This makes working with police really difficult and sometimes impossible!

All the best,
Daniel
Nicole Schlaefli, Epidemiologist
Another part to consider is that there is a long standing rivalry between police and fire. I’ve never worked in either and I have no clue to cause for the animosity. But I have worked in several states and local jurisdictions (and one overseas) and for some reason, that rivalry exists. In my current jurisdiction, Fire (paramedics) carry narcan but police don’t. Public health has pointed out several times that police are usually first called and first on scene so they should also carry and it shouldn’t be a one or the other situation, it should be a both situation. At this point, the answer stands at only fire
Daniel Neill, New York University
That’s really interesting Nicole, thanks for sharing these thoughts! I hadn’t thought about this aspect of the problem! Best regards, Daniel
howard burkom
Many of us can relate to Nicole’s observation about historical difficulties in sharing data and information between law enforcement and public health.  However, times and minds can change, and we shouldn’t paint with too broad a brush and ignore sharing possibilities because we assume that barriers are permanent.   Before the pandemic, I worked with HIDTA’s ODMAP program, and most ODMAP data (at that time) came from law enforcement.  At a workshop, there were law enforcement presentations suggesting increased willingness to collaborate with public health.  From my notes:
  • 6. Attendance was highly skewed toward law enforcement and academic criminology, with only one epidemiologist (an ESSENCE user from Tennessee) and nobody from EMS. Given that representation, it was remarkable that much discussion was devoted to improved access to treatment--demand-side efforts, not just enforcement and narcan distribution, even from the police. HIDTA even has a full-time staff member devoted to improving collaboration with treatment providers at all levels. The NJ police lieutenant referred me to the Operation Helping Hands program. [ For example, see https://www.njoag.gov/programs/nj-cares/operation-helping-hand/ ]
  • 7. There was discussion around a presenter’s statement that “law enforcement won’t supply data to public health”, and speakers suggested that sharing is becoming more likely and acceptable.
More recently, in Balt. County’s monthly Overdose Intervention Team calls, there is consistent attendance and participation from county law enforcement as well as other agencies.    So while mindful of past obstacles to collaboration between law enforcement and public health, I don’t think a whole generation needs to die before data or at least information sharing can occur.  But we do need to have the conversations and be cognizant and accommodating of the constraints on both sides—and that takes time and resources.
Jamison Crawford
More to consider: U.S. law enforcement (LE) has no constitutional duty to protect other civilians or prevent clear and imminent harm to civilians unless they are "in custody" (DeShaney vs. Winnebago, Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, et al.). Moreover, compulsory attendance in in public schools has been found to be considered not "in custody". These rulings bolster "qualified immunity" for LE, allowing them considerable latitude for inaction, such as failing to administer naloxone to an overdose victim, to be considered "negligence" rather than "gross negligence", and thus legal immunity. 
Reva Katz, Epidemiologist  at Anchorage Health Department
In our municipality, police were not allowed to carry but just changed for 2023. Much was union for various reasons. Also still much misinformation about using narcan and aftermath requiring medically trained.