Police get new powers to test drivers for drugs
Drinking and driving penalties also going up
Scott Dunn (Source: Sun Times)
Police across Canada will have new powers to investigate drivers suspected of being impaired by drugs starting July 2, when penalties for driving while impaired will also go up.
Police who suspect drug impairment will have authority to require roadside physical co-ordination tests to gauge sobriety. If, in the opinion of the officer, the suspect fails, then the driver will be taken to a police detachment to be tested by a “drug evaluation expert,” which all police services will likely have to train.
Neither city police officials or the South Bruce OPP media relations officer were familiar enough with the changes to comment.
However, Ontario Provincial Police Chief Superintendent Bill Grodzinski, commander of the OPP highway safety division, said Wednesday that “what we’re seeing is a very significant shift . . . What we’re seeing is more drug-impaired operators.”
The legislation “provides police with that additional help that we want.”
The drug evaluations experts will have authority to demand samples of saliva, urine or blood to determine the presence of alcohol or a drug without a warrant, Department of Justice spokeswoman Carole Saindon said.
Tests on the fluids can detect seven families of drugs, although there’s no specific drug impairment level as there is for alcohol.
It will take “a number of years” to train enough officers as drug evaluation experts, said Grodzinski, the chairman of an Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police committee consulted about the legislation.
The drug evaluations will include measurements of blood pressure, body temperature and pulse, assess pupil size and muscle tone to determine impairment, Saindon said. The legislation allows roadside and detachment tests to be video-recorded.
The changes are part of the federal government’s Tackling Violent Crime Bill, some aspects of which have already taken effect including higher mandatory prison sentences for violent crimes, making it tougher to get bail and raising the age of sexual consent.
Minimum penalties for impaired driving by alcohol or a drug will climb to $1,000 from $600 for a first offence, 30 days in jail instead of 14 upon a second conviction and 120 days in jail for subsequent convictions, up from 90 days.
Refusing or failing to comply with police demands for drug sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples will lead to the same minimum $1,000 fine and one-year driving prohibition on a first offence as would be imposed for a drinking and driving conviction.
It will also be an offence for a driver who knows or should know they have caused a fatal accident to refuse to take a drug impairment test or provide samples. The maximum penalty under that provision is a life sentence.
Grodzinski also noted new, more accurate, breath-testing equipment should be arriving at OPP detachments this fall at a cost of $2 million.
“Impaired driving continues to be the leading cause of criminal death in Canada” despite great reductions over the years. In Ontario, about one-quarter of the road fatalities are alcohol-related, according to the Ministry of Transportation.
Meanwhile, provincial legislation will target drivers with some alcohol in their system, but not enough to be charged criminally.
Grodzinski said they will be “the toughest sanctions in the country and everyone is looking at them” when they take effect, which he understands will happen this fall.
The Safer Roads for a Safer Ontario Act would increase roadside driving suspensions for people who blow a warning, or 0.05 to 0.08 blood alcohol concentration, in roadside tests to three days for a first offence instead of 12 hours and seven days for a second offence. The driver will also have to take a remedial course.
Third or subsequent instances incur a 30-day suspension and the driver must undergo a remedial measures course and limit their driving to a vehicle with a ignition lock requiring breath samples for six months.
The act also lets authorities seize vehicles from people who continue to drink and drive.
5 responses so far ↓
Hans Fehlow // July 2, 2008 at 2:54 pm |
There should be a choice to have drug testing done in a hospital setting. I believe there are too many opportunities for abuse by the police. It will take some test cases before the courts to have this change considered as it did in California where drug testing is common place.
pcholakis // July 2, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
Thank you Hans.
FYI, any drug screen done by Police resulting in a NON-NEGATIVE result, should be followed by an INDEPENDENT laboratory analysis done on a sample taken in less than one hour of the original sample.
The above is critical from two perspectives:
1. Quantitative GC/MS or LC/MS/MS analysis is virtually 100% accurate.
2. I agree, that an indepedent lab is appropriate vs. police relative to the second test.
Robert Maxwell // August 20, 2008 at 3:39 am |
The issues relating to businesses and the liability they have to endure with employees that are found under the influence are very serious. Being a professional that represents a firm that offers certified employee screening services it is important that I note that regulations related to firms transporting goods and services is very important to note. Specifically and as a result of 9/11 more stringent regulations have been adopted to oversee firms that transport goods across state lines. Specifically, finding a firm that specializes in overseeing Department of Transport employee screening checks has to be an integral part of the human resource component of a business. Being open an honest and not promoting my specific business, the site my company sponsors Corporate Background Checks has a wealth of information related to services for this area. Please review the information this site offers relating to this subject.
pcholakis // August 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm |
Thank you for your comments Robert.
Please note the following however -
1. Indeed, the issues relating to businesses and the liability they have to endure with employees that are found under the influence are very serious. – As such, it is an employer’s legal responsibility to maintain a safe work environment.
2. There is sufficient evidence to support the fact that the DOT testing process is outdated, flawed, and relatively ineffective. Therefore, it would be foolhardy for any employer to exclusively use this drug testing technique.
3. Notwithstanding the above, yes, it it clearly importatnt to note regulations related to firms transporting goods and services. This DOES NOT, however, mean that these regulations will protect an employees safety.
4. Finding a firm that specializes in overseeing Department of Transport employee screening checks will, it itself, DO VERY LITTLE will respect to protecting an employee’s safety.
5. Yes – background checks are also an important component to workplace safety, as is random drug testing via observed specimen collectoin.
6. Being open an honest and not promoting your specific business – you must be aware of the issues surrounding urine-based testing:
- can not realistically be directly observed
- opiate cut-off level set too high to be effective
- does not detect oxycodone or hydrocodone
- subject to prevalent practices of adulteration and substituion.
… just to name a few
fair law // October 20, 2008 at 4:45 am |
High blood pressure medication side effects – Dizziness
- drowsiness
About 73 million people in the United States age 20 and older have high blood pressure . Many blood
pressure drugs impair drivers . The Drug recognition officer are trained to focus on certain classes of
drugs.
This Drug recognition system is discrimination beyond all believe . This dui training police certification
is
an insult to humanity . The training focus is on the seven drug categories not
the dangerous ace inhibitor heart meds. The police will arrest a adhd class of drug user
more often than a high blood pressure pill user . Try to find statistics on heart medication
dui changes on the web. These statistics are almost none existent and then look
up stimulant drug arrest and you will see they discriminate and do not seem
to mind the highly impaired heart patient.
The Drug recognition web police sites MOSTLY mention stimulant adhd drug CLASS and rarely
SEEM to mention
heart drugs that impair . This is discrimination towards adhd suffering people whom
take stimulants to perform normally in life is a disgrace to humanity