POLICE STRUGGLE TO TRAIN DRUG-RECOGNITION EXPERTS

Two years after Ottawa passed a controversial law that gave police new
powers to go after drugged-up drivers, opinion is divided over how
much of a difference the law has made and whether those police powers
can hold up in court.

Under the law, which came into effect in July 2008, an officer who
suspects a driver may be impaired by drugs can demand that the driver
perform a test of their physical co-ordination.

If the driver fails that test, the officer can compel the driver to go
to the police station for a lengthier evaluation by a drug-recognition
expert.

At the end of that evaluation, the expert can order the driver to
submit a blood, urine or saliva sample -- in much the same way police
can compel someone suspected of being too boozy to drive to submit a
breath sample.

Refusal to comply can result in a $1,000 fine.

"It's simply levelled the playing field -- to hold them accountable as
we do alcohol-impaired drivers," said Ian Brooks, an acting sergeant
with the Edmonton police.

But while drug impaired-driving arrests last year rose to 1,394 from
441 the year before, they still accounted for only a sliver of the
88,630 total impaired-driving arrests, Statistics Canada data show.

Part of the problem, critics say, is that police agencies have been
too slow to train officers to become drug-recognition experts. There
are now just more than 600 nationwide, with wide variations among
Canada's major police forces.

Some agencies admit they struggle to have even one expert available
per shift.

"It's a joke," said Toronto criminal lawyer Jonathan Rosenthal. "They
come out with guns blazing -- 'we're coming out hard on crime' -- but
if you don't put resources into the system, it's meaningless."

RCMP Sgt. Evan Graham, national co-ordinator of the drug-recognition
expert program, acknowledged that the training of officers is a
"little behind" where he'd hoped to be at this point, but he said he
hopes to add another 200 to 300 experts per year over the next few
years.

Training takes two weeks to complete, plus there's another week of
field certification, he added.

"It's not overnight."

And while authorities say most drug-impaired driving arrests result in
guilty pleas, the few cases that have gone to trial have, in at least
a couple instances, resulted in acquittals -- raising questions,
defence lawyers say, about the reliability of the testing.

Earlier this year, an Ontario court heard the case of a man who hit a
mailbox with his car and went off the road in the community of
Chatham-Kent.

Police observed the driver had droopy eyes, slow and thick speech and
was unco-ordinated, the court heard. A police drug-recognition expert
concluded the driver was likely impaired by a central nervous system
depressant, which was later confirmed by a urine analysis.

But Ontario Justice Stephen J. Fuerth acquitted the driver. The judge
said evidence of the driver's impairment was "far from compelling,"
and the Crown had failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt the drug
had caused the driver to be impaired at the time he was driving.

"The hurdle for the Crown in these cases is to relate back the
findings of the evaluation, and the subsequent chemical analysis, to
the time of the driving," the judge said in his decision.

David Maslak, the defence lawyer in that case, said he thinks the
science is just not there to support certain drug-impaired driving
charges.

"I think convictions are going to be few and far between," he said in
an interview.

But police and safety advocates insist the drug-evaluation program is
reliable and has been used with great success for years in the United
States.

"When you're talking sciences, there's not a lot of room for
inaccuracies," said Toronto police Sgt. Tim Burrows. "Reliability (of
the tests) is very high."

In those cases that resulted in acquittals, prosecutors may have
needed to just do a better job of preparing their evidence and calling
the right experts, said Doug Beirness, senior research and policy
analyst at the Canadian Centre for Substance Abuse, which supported
the legislation.

Beirness and other safety advocates say drug-impaired driving has been
ignored for too long and is far more prevalent in society than most
people think.

In 2008, the centre oversaw a roadside survey of 1,500 drivers in
B.C., which found that 8.1 per cent had been drinking and 10.4 per
cent tested positive for drug use. Cannabis and cocaine were the most
common drugs.

Gregg Thomson, an Ottawa-area board member of Mothers Against Drunk
Driving, said there's no doubt in his mind the new legislation has
made Canadian roads safer.

"We're extremely pleased with the progress so far," said Thomson,
whose son, Stan, was one of five teens killed in 1999 in a
chain-reaction accident caused by a 17-year-old driver who had been
smoking marijuana.

Drivers -- particularly young ones -- have a false perception that
only alcohol can cause impairment, he said.

"Education is No. 1. We have to get the word out."