Enhancing Drugged Driving Data: State-Level Recommendations

The AAA Foundation has sponsored three interrelated studies over the last five years to identify and address issues related to the quality and quantity of drugged driving data. These three reports describe the complex and evolving issues related to measuring and documenting the extent of drugged driving in the United States. The Phase I report, title Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level: Synthesis of Barriers and Expert Panel Recommendations (2016), detailed expert panel recommendations on advancing drugged driving data collection. The Phase II report, titled Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level: State-by-State Assessment (2018), compared the Phase I state-level recommendations to policies and practices in each state and the District of Columbia. This Phase III effort focuses on seven of the Phase I state-level recommendations, eliciting a list of specific barriers and action steps from key stakeholders to address current laws and policies that are not fully aligned with the recommendations. This report reviews national developments on drugged driving, features individual state charts, and summarizes state findings from the 45 jurisdictions (44 states and the District of Columbia) who participated in this project. It also provides background information on each of the recommendations, including relevant recent literature or resources on the topic. Recommendations where the most states aligned were: (1) Implied consent laws should: (a) extend to drugs and support the collection of blood and/or oral fluid for drug testing; (b) include the collection of a specimen or specimens for multiple tests; and (c) should not permit suspects to choose the type of test(s). (2) Authorize and encourage law enforcement officers (LEOs) to collect and test specimens for drugs on all Driving Under the Influence/Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUI/DUID) arrestees (with probable cause and a warrant for a blood test). Even though all LEOs are authorized to, they are not necessarily encouraged to pursue drug testing especially when the BAC is .08 or higher. (3) Authorize and encourage drug testing for all surviving drivers in fatal and serious injury crashes when there is probable cause that impairment was a factor. (4) At a minimum, the administrative penalty (license suspension) for a refusal to provide a specimen for drug testing should be at least as severe as for a first DUID offense.

• Record URL:
  https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AAAFTS_DD-Data-Barriers-Report-12.23-FINAL.pdf
• Record URL:
  https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/AAAFTS_DD-Data-Barriers-Report-Appendices-12.23-FINAL.pdf
• Summary URL:
  https://aaafoundation.org/enhancing-drugged-driving-data-state-level-recommendations/
• Summary URL:
  https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/19-0618_AAAFTS_Barriers-Fact-Sheet_FINAL.pdf
• Supplemental Notes:
  • ©2019 AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. Appendices (200p.) are a separate document at the provided URL.
• Corporate Authors:

  Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

  ,    

  AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

  Washington, DC  United States 
• Authors:
  • Taylor, Eileen P
  • McKnight, A Scott
  • Treffers, Ryan
• Publication Date: 2019-12

Language

• English

Media Info

• Media Type: Digital/other
• Features: Appendices; References; Tables;
• Pagination: 62p

Subject/Index Terms

• TRT Terms: Data collection; Drug tests; Drugged drivers; Policy, legislation and regulation; Recommendations; Stakeholders; State laws; States
• Geographic Terms: United States
• Subject Areas: Data and Information Technology; Highways; Law; Policy; Safety and Human Factors;

Filing Info

• Accession Number: 01727644
• Record Type: Publication
• Files: TRIS
• Created Date: Jan 21 2020 9:48AM