Combating the drug-impaired driver : a prescription for safer highways.

Paltell, Eric; Booz, Mark L · 1985 · 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 1985 report, commissioned by the Virginia General Assembly under House Joint Resolution No. 10, addresses the critical safety threat posed by drug-impaired driving (DUID) and the Commonwealth’s inability to effectively detect and prosecute offenders. While all 50 states prohibit DUID, Virginia faced significant statutory and procedural impediments that rendered enforcement nearly impossible. The study was motivated by a consensus among law enforcement and medical officials that DUID is a dangerous phenomenon, yet Virginia had recorded only 132 DUID convictions between 1973 and 1984, with numbers dropping to just four in 1984. This low conviction rate was attributed not to a lack of impaired drivers—police estimated that 17% of drivers stopped for unsafe driving were under the influence of drugs—but to systemic failures in evidence collection and legal definition. The research methodology involved a comprehensive review of DUID laws across all 50 states and the Uniform Vehicle Code, supplemented by telephone interviews with law enforcement personnel and on-site evaluations of successful enforcement programs in Los Angeles and Fort Lauderdale. The study also analyzed the pharmacological effects of various drug classes, including benzodiazepines, barbiturates, amphetamines, and opiates, noting that drug impairment is often exacerbated by combination with alcohol or other substances. The authors identified three primary deficiencies in Virginia’s system: the inability to obtain chemical specimens for drug analysis under the implied consent law, an ambiguously defined DUID statute that failed to clearly establish impairment as the central element of the offense, and a lack of specialized training for police officers to recognize symptoms of drug impairment. The findings highlight that chemical testing is essential for DUID prosecution because behavioral evidence alone is rarely sufficient for conviction due to the difficulty in identifying specific drug effects. However, unlike alcohol, drug testing presents interpretive challenges; there are no established presumptive impairment levels, and metabolites can remain in the system for days, meaning a positive test does not automatically prove impairment at the time of driving. Consequently, successful prosecution requires combining chemical evidence with expert testimony on pharmacological effects and officer observations of behavior. The report concluded that Virginia’s current legal framework prevented officers from obtaining necessary evidence, as the implied consent law did not authorize drug testing, and refusal to consent was inadmissible in court. To rectify these issues, the report recommends amending Virginia’s implied consent and DUID statutes to allow for drug testing, permit officers to designate specimen types, and make refusal to test admissible evidence. It also proposes redefining the DUID offense to explicitly focus on drug-induced impairment of driving skills. Implementation requires equipping the Division of Consolidated Laboratory Services with the capacity to analyze DUID specimens, with projected annual operating costs of $158,000 to $217,000 and initial capital expenses of $245,000 to $460,000. Additionally, the report advocates for a pilot program to train "Drug Recognition Experts," modeled after the Los Angeles Police Department’s successful initiative, to improve officer ability to detect impairment and provide corroborative testimony. These measures aim to align Virginia’s enforcement capabilities with the magnitude of the DUID problem, thereby enhancing highway safety.

Key finding

Virginia's inability to obtain chemical evidence of drug presence due to statutory gaps in implied consent laws and insufficient police training resulted in only 132 DUID convictions between 1973 and 1984 despite high suspected impairment rates.

Methodology

review

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.

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

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence