Citation

Holmgren P, Loch E, Schuberth J. Forensic Sci. Int. 1985; 27(1): 57-65.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1985, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

3988194

Abstract

This paper deals with the police officer's or police doctor's ability to find drivers under the influence of drugs. We have also studied whether the protocol on the driver's previous histories of drug intake is useful for directing the chemist in his analytical approach to revealing intoxicants in the suspects' body fluids. A comprehensive procedure for screening traffic-hazardous drugs in the urine was found necessary and is described. By using this method, we have studied the incidence of drunken drivers with detectable medicinal or illicit agents. The results demonstrate that 91% of those drivers found by the officer or doctor of the police to be on intoxicants other than ethanol, carried some kind of traffic-hazardous drug in their body fluids, and that the doctor was a better judge than the police in identifying these offenders. By using a series of chemical methods for drug screening, we found that every third driver suspected of drunken driving due to ethanol, but not to other intoxicants, held some kind of a traffic-hazardous drug substance in his urine; benzodiazepines and cannabinoids were the most common findings. The data imply that 34% of these suspects revealed their intakes of traffic-dangerous intoxicants. We conclude that the judgements of both the officer and doctor of the police are needed for an efficacious detection of drivers under the influence of drugs. Moreover, the results infer that the chemist has to screen for intoxicants to reveal these in a suspect driver. We also conclude that drugs, particularly the benzodiazepines or cannabinoids, may be commonly encountered in drunken drivers, suspected of being inebriated by ethanol but no other toxicants.

Language: en