After five years of Parliamentary debate, as of July 2, 2008 new federal laws on impaired driving finally provide the police with powers to detect, investigate, and lay charges for drug impaired driving, and the courts with defined sentencing options. Although drug-impaired driving has been an offence in Canada since 1925, enforcement was extremely difficult and remained so even as the rate of drug impaired driving rose steadily to its current unacceptably high levels. The following summary updates these new laws previewed in Road Rules during the debate stage.
If the police reasonably believe that a suspect has any alcohol or drugs in their body, they may demand that the suspect participate in “physical coordination testing” and “drug recognition evaluation”. Physical coordination testing is a screening tool based on the internationally recognized Standard Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) protocol used throughout the United States and other countries.
SFST has three tests: the walk-and-turn, the one-leg stand, and the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN). The HGN test assesses automatic jerking of the eyeball while following a point of light, which becomes more pronounced with increases in an individual’s blood alcohol concentration. Failing the SFST provides the police with reasonable grounds for believing that the suspect is impaired. This, in turn, provides them with the necessary grounds for asking the suspect to accompany them to the police station to participate in a drug recognition evaluation (DRE).
Specially trained and certified officers conduct the DRE to determine, first, if the driver is drug impaired. This component of the test contains 11 separate steps: a breath test to rule out alcohol impairment, interviewing the arresting officer and the suspect, physical coordination tests similar to those conducted roadside, eye examinations, and checking the suspect’s temperature, pulse, blood pressure, and muscle tone, and body for injection sites. If the officer concludes the suspect is impaired, the second component of the test involves identifying the class of drugs involved.
DRE is designed to identify seven classes of drugs: depressants (e.g. barbiturates), inhalants (e.g. gasoline), phencyclidine (e.g. PCP or angel dust), cannabis, stimulants (e.g. amphetamines and cocaine), hallucinogens (e.g. LSD and MDA), and narcotics (e.g. heroin and morphine). The officer can demand a blood, urine or saliva sample to confirm whether the sample contains the identified class of drugs. A drug-impaired driving charge will only proceed to trial if the analysis of the suspect’s sample confirms the officer’s conclusion about the class of drugs involved. Refusal or failure to comply with a demand to provide for physical sobriety tests or bodily fluid samples is a criminal offence.
In response to concerns about the intrusive nature of the new laws, MADD Canada’s backgrounder on this new legislation counters that the approach adopted in Canada is relatively cautious. It notes that, “Police throughout Western Europe and Australia are given far broader powers to investigate drug-impaired driving and to demand samples from drivers”…[and asserts that] “Canada’s new amendments should be seen as a balanced and measured response to the risks posed by the increasing rates of drug-impaired driving.”
Cedric Hughes of Hughes and Company Law Corporation, with contributions from Leslie McGuffin, LL.B., writes a weekly column on traffic advice for The VOICE. "The Road Rules" strives to provide helpful information about driving in British Columbia. We welcome your comments on our published articles and your suggestions for topics you would like us to address. Please email: eginter@hughesco.com. Phone: (604) 602-1818. Punjabi and Hindi: (604) 897-0207.
Email: cedric_hughes@hughesco.com
|
