|
Abstract
|
Although alcohol-related impaired driving continues to be the primary cause of fatal automobile accidents (National Center for Statistics and Analysis, 2019), drug-impaired driving has emerged as a grow- ing threat to public safety. In particular, cannabis-related impaired driving has emerged as the most-prevalent type of (nonalcohol) drugged driving (Kelley-Baker et al., 2017). Identifying and prosecuting cases of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) requires the engagement of three important actors within the criminal justice system: law enforcement, forensic toxicolo- gists, and prosecutors. Each of these actors plays a crucial role in gathering, interpreting, or presenting evidence of drug- impaired driving to build a suc- cessful case. Meticulous obser- vational and chemical evidence collection and skilled, simple interpretation of this evidence is particularly important in a DUID case because such cases can be more complex and difficult to prove than alcohol- related impaired driving cases (Compton, 2009). Although blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels have been estab- lished and accepted as reliable and valid evidence of alcohol- impaired driving, no equiva- lent technique yet exists that correlates an amount of a drug in the body with the degree of drug-related impairment (Arnold and Scopatz, 2016).
On behalf of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), RTI International and the RAND Corporation convened a work- shop, titled Countering Drug- Impaired Driving, on June 12 and 13, 2019. The workshop was held at the Office of Justice Program's (OJP) headquarters in Washington, D.C., and was designed to inform NIJ's science and technology innovation agenda. The workshop partici- pants included law enforcement officers, forensic toxicologists, and prosecutors who are expe- rienced in DUID cases (see the "Participants" box in the body of this report). The panel discus- sion focused on four areas: field observational tests, chemical tests, the role of technology, and admissibility of evidence. Using these discussions, the panel members identified and ranked needs for law enforcement, forensic toxicologists, and pros- ecutors to successfully identify and prosecute DUID cases.
RESULTS
• The likely benefits of having the right number of officers with specialized training in identifying drug impairment should be identified.
• More observational tests should be added to the standard field sobriety testing battery (e.g., Romberg and finger to nose).
• Research should be conducted to identify the barriers to adoption of electronic warrants and the costs, risks, and benefits of implementation.
• The costs, risks, and benefits of alternative phlebotomy approaches (e.g., officer training, contracts) should be identified.
• Detailed data should be collected on the effectiveness of field sobriety tests when used for actual driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) cases and those data should be used to conduct additional research.
• Training should be developed and validated to boost the confidence of officers when testifying (“cops and court”).
• Gaps in resources and potential funding sources should be identified that could bring labs up to the required level of capability.
• Access to interpretive DUID training for toxicologists (ideally jointly with prosecutors) should be promoted and improved.
• The impact and risks to justice and due process of not investing sufficient resources into toxicology testing should be identified.
• Solutions should be collected that could increase access to training.
• Critical research areas should be collected and identified.
• Best practices should be identified for dealing with refusals.
• The risks and benefits of changing implied consent laws and other possible solutions, such as e-warrants, should be highlighted.
On behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the RAND Corporation, in partnership with the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), RTI International, and the University of Denver, is carrying out a research effort to assess and prioritize technology and related needs across the criminal justice community. This research effort, called the Priority Criminal Justice Needs Initiative, is a component of the Criminal Justice Requirements & Resources Con- sortium (RRC), and is intended to support innovation within the criminal justice enterprise. For more information about the RRC and the Priority Criminal Justice Needs Initiative, please see www.rand.org/well-being/justice-policy/projects/ priority-criminal-justice-needs.
This report is one product of that effort.
Keywords: Cannabis impaired driving; DUID; Ethanol impaired driving |