POLICE TAKE AIM AT DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVERS

Controversial Law Allows Officers To Demand New Tests

Drivers high on drugs may no longer be able to avoid detection at
checkstops now that some Calgary police officers are accredited as
drug-recognition experts with the authority to demand blood, urine or
saliva samples.

Specially trained RCMP and city police are on the lookout for drivers
using "any drug that impairs their ability to operate a motor
vehicle," said RCMP spokesman Sgt. Patrick Webb.

Impairment by illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine or ecstasy is
commonly watched for by police, said Webb, but they're also looking
for any drug, including prescription drugs, that impairs the ability to drive.

"I think we have to get away from the mindset that impaired driving
is just people involving alcohol," said John Dooks, president of the
Calgary Police Association.

The new enforcement powers are part of a controversial Canadian law
that came into effect July 2. Although drug-impaired driving has been
illegal since 1925, the new law gives police the authority to demand
a suspect take roadside physical co-ordination tests such as walking
and turning or standing on one leg -- something they could previously
obtain only voluntarily.

If a suspected drug-impaired driver fails the physical tests, a
breath test will be conducted to rule out alcohol impairment before
the suspect is sent to a police detachment. There, 11 further tests
will be done by a drug-recognition expert who must first identify the
type of drugs involved before requesting blood, urine or saliva samples.

"If the test comes back (from the laboratory) and there is no drug in
the system, the person will not be charged with impaired driving," said Webb.

However, if the bodily fluids test confirms the officer's conclusion
about the type of drugs involved, a drug-impaired charge will result.

Those who refuse to comply with testing can be subject to a minimum
$1,000 fine, the same as the penalty for refusing a breath test.

Critics say there is not yet enough research to equate drug levels in
the body with impairment.

"The biggest problem is how much the police will be able to prove
(impairment)," said Stephen Jenuth, president of the Alberta Civil
Liberties Association.

"I don't think there's anything that shows a drug at a certain level
results in impairment."

Jenuth also sees problems with the testing of bodily fluids because
it can detect drug use from days or weeks earlier.

"Someone may have had some painkillers five days ago and still have
some residue in their system and that may turn up," he said. "I'm not
sure that is something they can be convicted of."

The same holds true for drugs and alcohol, said Webb. If someone
drinks heavily and is given a breathalyzer two days later, he or she
will still have a detectable level of alcohol, but it won't be enough
for an impaired charge.

He said there will need to be impairment levels established for each
type of drug, be it marijuana or cocaine.

"It will ultimately have to be determined how much of each of those
causes impairment. I don't believe there is yet a level established
for all of those. The courts will need to look at all of that."

Calgary's new drug-recognition experts are trained under the Drug
Evaluation and Classification Program, founded in Los Angeles in the
1970s. It was introduced to British Columbia in 1995 and is now a
national program being offered to police officers across Canada
through the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.