Little Continuity Between Drugged Driving Laws

(Fall 2016) Although all U.S. states have “under the influence” laws in place, legislators throughout the nation are attempting to find a way to handle drugged driving in particular. Only about half of the states have laws specifically dealing with drivers impaired by drugs. Of those 22 states, 16 take a zero-tolerance stance on particular substances. The remaining six states list drug concentration levels for a driver’s urine or blood that are deemed illegal, whether or not the driver’s condition makes operating a motor vehicle unsafe. Several states exempt medical marijuana users from the zero-tolerance policy, although the “under the influence” law still applies to them.

Legislation is not even uniform among states that have given the nod to recreational marijuana. Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia all have general “under the influence” policies. However, Washington State’s law outlines that a driver aged 21 or older with five or more nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood is in violation, while any trace of marijuana is considered illegal for individuals under 21 years old. Colorado has patterned its laws closely after that of Washington State.

These laws are important to review and update, as the prevalence of drugged driving increases. The rate of drivers’ positive tests rose from 12.4% in 2007 to just over 15% in 2013 and 2014. Close to 40% of individuals who perished in car crashes in 2013 and were tested had identifiable amounts of drugs, both legal and illicit, in their bodies. This percentage is a similar percentage to those individuals testing positive for alcohol. The drugs most commonly found were marijuana and amphetamines.

Muddying the waters of drugged driving is a Supreme Court ruling handed down this summer. It states that a motor vehicle operator suspected of drunk driving cannot be subject to criminal charges for declining a blood alcohol test unless it is backed by a warrant.  However, individuals can be prosecuted for refusing a breathalyzer test. The decision revolves around the Fourth Amendment and its shielding of citizens from “unreasonable search and seizures.” Although this case centers on alcohol, it could influence cases associated with drugged driving.  At this time there is no breathalyzer-type test for drugs.

The new ruling may lead to an increase in DUI convictions due to additional evidence collection, as well as the fact that simply refusing a breathalyzer test is now against the law.

See more Legal & Legislative Updates articles.