Pubdate: Fri, 02 May 2014
Source: StarPhoenix, The (CN SN)
Copyright: 2014 The StarPhoenix
Contact: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/letters.html
Website: http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/400
Author: Betty Ann Adam

DRUGGED DRIVING

Province toughens consequences for high drivers despite uphill battle
to convict

A heavy hammer will come down on new drivers who use any amount of
alcohol or drugs after changes to the Traffic Safety Act take effect
June 27.

Vehicles will be impounded immediately for three days and driving
suspensions will double to 60 days for drivers charged with driving
over the legal limit, refusing to give a breath sample or driving
while impaired by drugs or alcohol.

Drivers under the age of 19 or in the graduated licensing programs for
vehicles or motorcycles will also be required to take driving without
impairment courses within four months of being charged, even if they
are not found guilty in court.

The zero tolerance and new penalties allow police to immediately take
impaired drivers off the road and remove access to their vehicle to
lessen the risk of further impaired driving, SGI spokesperson Kelley
Brinkworth said.

Immediate sanctions for drug impairment rankle Saskatoon lawyer Brian
Pfefferle, who thinks they ignore a person's right to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty and over-estimate actual driving
impairment from drugs, especially marijuana. Mark Brayford, another
Saskatoon lawyer who has defended many people accused of impaired
driving, said he takes no issue with keeping a tight rein on
inexperienced drivers.

People who are still learning shouldn't test their abilities with any
sort of intoxicating substance in their systems, especially when it's
illegal anyway, he said.

"It makes sense from the perspective that as new drivers, we don't
want you to take that risk," Brayford said. "Zero tolerance can
rationally be connected to safety."

A rare charge

According to a study by Mothers Against Drinking and Driving (MADD),
56 drug-impaired driving charges were laid in Saskatchewan in 2012 -
but neither MADD nor provincial justice ministry officials know if
there have been any convictions.

Brayford said chances are good that at least some of the people
charged would have pleaded guilty - but he didn't know of any, either.

Pfefferle said the low number of charges suggests police are using
"appropriate discretion."

"They don't lay charges willy nilly," Pfefferle said.

Testing still questionable

In 2008, the Criminal Code was amended to give police authority to
demand physical co-ordination tests and drug recognition evaluations,
which provided more detailed, objective evidence of a driver's impairment.

The evaluation starts with observations of the person driving and
talking at the scene, said Saskatoon police Const. Clayton Schaefer,
who is trained as a drug evaluation expert.

It also includes taking a pulse rate, looking for certain involuntary
eye movements, divided attention and balance testing. Urine samples
are taken to validate the findings.

Saskatoon lawyer Brian Pfefferle said he thinks the field sobriety
tests police use are "junk science" when it comes to assessing driving
impairment, though he admits they have merit in determining that a
person has used drugs.

"Without being able to account for people's disabilities and the
different variables, it's just impossible for most officers to say
with the degree of accuracy you need to prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that this person is impaired by a drug," Pfefferle said.

Cannabis is the drug most commonly cited in charges of possession
under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, but courts have found
there is inadequate proof that it impairs driving ability.

In 2012, Saskatoon provincial court judge Daryl Labach acquitted a
woman on an impaired driving charge because he wasn't convinced her
ability to drive was impaired at the time she was driving.

Labach said he was satisfied that Sherry Periallat had smoked
marijuana some two and a half hours before she was pulled over in a
routine traffic stop that led to Schaefer conducting a drug
recognition evaluation on her.

"What his evidence does not convince me of is that at the time she was
driving, her ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by
marijuana," Labach wrote in his decision.

He referred to a 2010 acquittal in Ontario in which the judge found
that drug impairment, unlike alcohol impairment, does not have limits
set out in the law.

Those limits are "based upon careful consideration of the science of
breath alcohol testing, and of absorption and elimination rates as it
relates to alcohol.

In the case of drugs, the Crown does not have the benefit of the
statutory presumptions," he wrote.

Labach found there was no information about impairment specifically at
the time of driving, and he wondered how evaluation findings relate to
a person's ability to drive.

"Was the accused's performance in some of the tests just as consistent
with someone who has poor balance or poor co-ordination as it was with
someone who had used marijuana?" he wrote.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt