DRUGGED DRIVERS A THREAT TO SAFETY

No one who values public safety over the rights of drivers opposes the
authority given to police to conduct CheckStops and demand breath samples.

It's simply understood that drunk drivers are potential killers on wheels
and when it comes to the protection of the public, motorists should not have
complete freedom from police intrusion.

The courts have clearly stated that roadside checks and demands for breath
samples are reasonable limits on people's liberties in order to keep our
roads safer.

But drunk drivers are not the only dangers on our streets. Motorists stoned
out of their minds on drugs - both legal and illegal - are also public
hazards.

Try catching them, though. While it's illegal to drive impaired by alcohol
or a drug, the cops have no authority to demand field sobriety tests or
bodily fluid samples from suspected drug-impaired motorists.

Instead, the police have to rely on general symptoms of impairment, driving
behaviour and witness testimony.

The only way of accumulating more evidence is if a suspected drug-impaired
driver volunteers to do a sobriety test or provide a urine sample, for
instance.

Drivers sometimes agree to the tests, mind you. An Edmonton woman
volunteered to be checked out after she drove onto the sidewalk and injured
a pedestrian, recalls Edmonton police Sgt. Conrad Moschansky.

It turned out she was taking seven different prescription drugs and didn't
realize she was impaired, says Moschansky, a specially trained drug
recognition expert (DRE).

The woman pleaded guilty to impaired driving, was fined $1,500 and lost her
licence for a year.

Most drug-impaired drivers, of course, don't volunteer for the 12-step DRE
evaluation, which includes a breath test, interview, eye exam, check of
vital signs and the provision of bodily fluid samples.

So Moschansky and the other 70-odd DRE-trained cops across Canada have to do
their best in court with the subjective evidence they've got.

"It amazes me how many people are out there under the influence (of drugs),"
says Moschansky.

"I'm seeing it more and more now that I know what to look for." Many drivers
just don't realize they're stoned, he adds.

He's keeping his fingers crossed that legislation introduced by Justice
Minister Irwin Cotler last week will help get more drug-impaired drivers off
the roads.

The draft law gives cops the authority to demand roadside field sobriety
tests and conduct DRE evaluations.

The DRE program was developed by the Los Angeles police force and is used in
most U.S. states.

Under Ottawa's proposed law, refusal to comply with a police officer's
demand would be an offence, as is already the case if a suspected drunk
driver refuses to give a breath sample.

Unlike with alcohol, there is no roadside device like a breathalyser to
detect a driver's specific drug concentrations. And there is no scientific
consensus on drug levels that cause impairment and make driving dangerous.

But that is no reason to fear that Ottawa's new legislation will be shot
down by the courts. You can be convicted of impaired driving after consuming
only one beer if there's evidence that alcohol hampered your ability to
drive.

In such cases, judges make their rulings based on the observations of police
officers.

Until we have the technology to determine legal limits for drugs with
roadside tests, as we have for alcohol, we must rely on the observations and
evaluations of specially trained police officers. But the cops can't
properly do their jobs unless they can demand driver compliance.

As Cotler remarked last week: "Ultimately, these amendments are about saving
lives."

The draft legislation will "inevitably" be challenged in the courts, says
Edmonton lawyer Brian McGlashan, who defends accused impaired drivers.

But he believes it's only a matter of time before drug-impaired driving
charges are as routine as drunk driving cases as drug-detection technology
improves.

"Drug tests will become part of the landscape," he predicts.

And perhaps our roads will be a little safer.