TROOPER'S REPORT ON DRUG IMPAIRMENT QUESTIONED

Local Highway Patrol troopers sometimes file accident reports that
suggest the driver may have been impaired by drugs besides alcohol -
even when there is no evidence to support that suspicion.

If that's the case, says a spokesman for the Highway Patrol in
Raleigh, the troopers aren't following the state agency's policy.

Information about the local Patrol's practice came to light recently
when relatives of William Kevin Perry, 28, asked why veteran Trooper
K.W. Bray indicated that drug and alcohol impairment were suspected
in Perry's fatal Jan. 5 traffic accident.

Family members knew Perry had been to a local bar the night he died.
But they said they were shocked when a news story published in The
Daily Advance about the accident indicated Bray suspected Perry may
have been impaired by drugs in addition to alcohol.

Information for the newspaper's story came from a Patrol spokeswoman,
who was reading from Bray's report. According to that report, Bray
checked a box that indicated that alcohol and other drugs of
impairment were suspected in Perry's wreck - even though there was no
evidence Perry had used any drug but alcohol.

Asked recently why he had filled out the report that way, Bray said
troopers routinely do it when completing reports on fatal accidents.
The accident itself can be an indication of impairment, he said, and
writing that both drug and alcohol use are suspected covers the
trooper's bases until a postmortem toxicology can sort out the truth.

That practice runs against policy, however, according to an N.C.
Highway Patrol official in Raleigh.

Lt. Everett Clendenin, a spokesman for the Patrol, said troopers must
list the most appropriate answers to a set of questions listed on
accident reports. In the box that deals with impairment, a trooper's
choices are: 1) alcohol is suspected, 2) alcohol is not suspected, 3)
an intoxicant other than alcohol is suspected, 4) no drugs other than
alcohol are suspected, 5) alcohol and other drugs of impairment are
suspected, 6) no impairment detected or, 7) unknown.

In Perry's case, Bray filled in number 5 - alcohol and other drugs of
impairment are suspected - instead of number 4.

"If that's the case, that is not the right response," Clendenin said,
referring to Bray's report of Perry's accident. "If that's happening
down there then potentially that is a training issue."

Sgt. C.D. Gould, the officer in charge of the local Highway Patrol
office, disagreed with Clendenin's assessment that there may be a
problem with how local troopers are being trained to fill out accident reports.

"We would indicate alcohol was related to the accident if there was
some reasonable suspicion to believe it was an alcohol-related
accident," Gould said. "On the drug part, if the trooper feels like
the driver is impaired they may indicate drug involvement until we
get the toxicology (report) back. But we don't indicate that on every
fatality, unless there is some other evidence to go on."

Gould did agree with Clendenin that troopers should choose the most
appropriate response on the fatal accident report.

"I will review details of the case," Gould said. "That doesn't mean I
will review training or anything. I don't need to. I agree with what
(Clendenin) said."

Meanwhile, members of Perry's family say the way the accident report
was originally filed has caused them some emotional distress.
Initially, they were shocked by the idea that Perry might have been
using drugs other than alcohol on the night he died.

But even after they cleared that up with Bray, who visited their
home, they said they still had to deal with friends asking them
whether Perry was a drug user. They said it has made the process of
trying to grieve for Perry's death that much harder.