Module 1 - Forensic Toxicology

Drug-Impaired Driving - A Deadly Mix

A Drug-Impaired Driving Tragedy

On the night of June 27, 1999, four vehicles carrying fourteen teenaged friends returning from an end-of-the-school-year party were involved in a multi-vehicle crash just outside Perth, Ontario. One of the four vehicles, driven by a 17-year-old male under the influence of marijuana, pulled into the oncoming lane to pass on a straight stretch of highway. It struck a pick-up truck towing a trailer with a car inside.  The collision caused a multi-vehicle collision that killed five of the teenagers in the four cars and seriously injured the two occupants of the pick-up truck.

Detecting Drugs in a Driver

Perhaps surprisingly, motor vehicle collisions caused by drug-impaired drivers are thought to occur just as frequently as those caused by alcohol-impaired drivers. Detecting signs of drug impairment during traffic stops is much more complicated than detecting drivers impaired by alcohol. No roadside-screening device can quickly and accurately assist police officers to determine impairment by drugs.  By comparison, alcohol impairment is relatively easy to detect with standard roadside testing procedures.

Although saliva and sweat can be tested for the presence of drugs, the highest concentration of the by-products of drug breakdown is contained in blood and urine. As a result, blood and urine are the most reliable body fluids to be analyzed. However, Canada has not yet enacted legislation to provide law enforcement officers with the authority to demand and seize such samples in cases of drug-impaired driving. In some Canadian jurisdictions, police officers are trained to seek voluntary tests from persons suspected of drug-impaired driving during impaired driving investigations. Law enforcement agencies in the United States benefit from “implied consent laws” that compel drivers to submit samples of their breath or blood in criminal investigations. In Canada, police officers currently rely on the cooperation of suspected drug-impaired drivers. Police are unable to continue investigating should the suspect decline to participate.  Canadian police officers, by law, cannot demand participation in drug-related field sobriety testing.

To get more drug-impaired drivers off the road, law enforcement agencies require accurate and portable roadside screening devices to test for drug impairment. The most common roadside drug screening devices are small hand-held single-use devices that are wiped in the mouth or on a suspect’s skin. The devices test saliva and/or sweat for the presence of cocaine, marijuana, opiates, and amphetamines. These devices do not indicate how much of the drug has been ingested by the suspect. To confirm the presence and determine the actual quantity of a drug(s) in a suspect, urine or blood samples must be analyzed by a forensic toxicologist. Canadian police agencies do not use roadside drug-screening devices because no legislation allows for this type of evidence to be used in court. Also, these roadside drug screening devices are not 100% accurate. Because false positive results can occur, a blood or urine analysis by a forensic toxicologist is the only certain test.

Possible Changes to Drug-Impaired Driving Laws

Since 1999, the Canadian Government has been studying ways in which provisions of the Criminal Code relating to the investigation of drug-impaired driving can be strengthened.

Currently, police officers who conduct drug-impaired driving investigations rely upon a suspect’s driving pattern, witness testimony, and informal methods of detecting signs of impairment exhibited by the suspect. Police officers do not have authority to make formal demands for urine or blood samples during drug-impaired driving investigations, except in very specific circumstances involving motor vehicle collisions involving injury to others. Only samples provided voluntarily by the accused can be presented as evidence in court.

In November 2006, the Government of Canada proposed to amend Canada’s Criminal Code for the purpose of stricter control on drug-impaired drivers.  Suggested changes could give police new powers to apprehend and test drivers suspected of drug impairment and increase penalties for such offences.

New laws proposed by the federal government would provide police with the authority to conduct the following procedures during drug-impaired driving investigations:

1. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests administered at the roadside when there is a reasonable suspicion that a driver has taken drugs

2. Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluations used when a police officer believes a drug-impaired driving offence has been committed. (These evaluations would be administered at a police station and include examination of pupil size, observation of eye movement, standard sobriety tests, a physical examination including measurements of blood pressure and heart rate, and an interview with the suspect to gain additional information related to possible drug ingestion.)

3. A toxicological examination (i.e. sample of blood or urine) should the DRE officer identify that the impairment was caused by a certain class of drugs (The analysis of blood or urine is intended to support the findings of the initial DRE evaluation and would proceed only if reasonable grounds exists to make such a request.)

Refusal to comply with any of these demands would constitute a criminal offence, punishable in the same manner as refusing to comply with a demand for breath samples. Penalties for a first offence generally consist of a $600 fine and a brief licence suspension often concurrent with a suspension levied under provincial law. Second offences typically result in a higher monetary fine and possible jail time of up to 14 days. These penalties may increase if proposed amendments to federal legislation are passed in Parliament.

Related Case Study Questions

1. Can the Breathalyzer device or Intoxilyzer device detect drugs? If no, state why.
   Ans.  No, the Breathalyzer device or Intoxilyzer device cannot detect drugs. These devices test breath samples, but by-products of drug breakdown cannot be found in breath samples.
2. List four body fluids that contain the by-products of drug breakdown.
   Ans.  Blood, saliva, sweat, urine
3. What body fluids contain the highest concentration of the by-products of drug breakdown?
   Ans.  Blood and urine
4. Explain why the evidence obtained from a roadside drug-testing device cannot be used to convict a suspected drug-impaired driver?
   Ans.  Roadside drug-testing devices indicate only if a particular drug is present. They do not indicate the quantity of the drug(s) in the body. They do not provide consistently reliable results. Also, Canadian legislation does not all this evidence to be used in court.
5. What would the drug-impaired driving legislation allow police officers to demand from a suspected impaired driver?
   Ans. 

   The new laws would allow police to demand the following during drug-impaired driving investigations:

   • Standardized Field Sobriety Tests administered at the roadside when there is a reasonable suspicion that a driver has taken drugs
   • Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) evaluations when a police officer believes a drug-impaired driving offence was committed (This includes a situation where the driver fails the sobriety tests. These evaluations can be administered at a police station and can help police notice the signs and symptoms of drug-impairment in drivers and then testify against them.)
   • A sample of body fluid (i.e., blood or urine) should the DRE officer determine that evidence of  impairment was caused by a certain class of drugs