Status report on Virginia's program to combat drug-impaired driving.

Jernigan, Jack D · 1989 · ROSA P / Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This status report documents the implementation and early results of Virginia’s revised statute combating drug-impaired driving (DUID), which took effect on April 1, 1988. The legislation was motivated by historically low conviction rates for DUID—averaging only 11 per year between 1973 and 1984—and the need to improve enforcement capabilities. A key legislative change authorized police to require blood samples, rather than urine, from suspects. This shift addressed the limitation of urine testing, which can detect drug metabolites long after use, whereas blood testing provides a more accurate indication of substance presence at the time of arrest. The program’s implementation relied on a task force approach involving state and local agencies, modeled after successful programs in California and Florida. A central component was the establishment of pilot Drug Recognition Technician (DRT) programs in Charlottesville, Henrico County, Virginia Beach, and the State Police. DRTs undergo specialized training, including 56 hours of classroom instruction and 40 hours of field training, to detect impairment symptoms and classify drug types. By November 1988, 18 officers had been certified as DRTs, with 33 candidates still in training. Funding for initial training and equipment was provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, while police agencies absorbed personnel costs. Data from the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services (DCLS) between April and November 1988 showed that 422 blood samples were submitted for analysis, averaging over 50 per month. Analysis of 354 samples revealed that marijuana (THC) and PCP were present in nearly half of the cases, and cocaine was found in 9.2 percent. In 12.6 percent of samples, blood alcohol concentration exceeded the 0.10 percent limit, precluding further drug testing. Only 7.1 percent of samples showed neither drugs nor alcohol. A significant operational challenge was the laboratory turnaround time, which averaged approximately 50 days due to the complexity of drug testing. To prevent case dismissals, the task force recommended scheduling trial dates 90 days post-arrest and prioritizing samples for upcoming trials. The report concludes that the task force approach facilitated a coordinated effort, with enforcement extending beyond pilot jurisdictions as non-DRT officers made more than half of the arrests. While the long-term effectiveness of the program remains to be determined, the initiative has increased arrests and established a framework for prosecution. The report notes that a three-year evaluation was approved to document strengths and weaknesses, aiming to refine the program and maximize its potential to enhance traffic safety.

Key finding

Marijuana and PCP were detected in nearly half of the analyzed blood samples, while the average laboratory turnaround time for drug analysis was approximately 50 days.

Methodology

dataset

Sample size: 354

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement
• illicit drugs
• drowsy as impairment
• polydrug
• cannabis