From The New York Times:

When Officer Darryll Dowell of the Nampa Police Department is on patrol, he will pull up at a stoplight and start casing the vehicle next to him. Nowadays, his eyes will also focus on the driver’s arms, searching for a plump, bouncy vein.

“I was looking at people’s arms and hands, thinking, ‘I could draw from that,’ ” Officer Dowell said.

The thought stems from training he and a select cadre of officers in Idaho and Texas have received in recent months in drawing blood from people suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The aim of the federal program is to determine if drawing blood by law-enforcement officers can be an effective tool against drunken drivers and aid in their prosecution.

If the results seem promising after a year or two, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration will encourage law-enforcement officers nationwide to undergo similar training.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1966 that the police could have blood tests forcibly done on a drunken-driving suspect without a warrant, as long as they were based on a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was intoxicated, and they were done after an arrest and carried out in a medically approved manner.

The practice of law-enforcement officers drawing blood, first done in Arizona in 1995, has raised concerns, though, about safety and the credibility of the evidence.

“I would imagine that a lot of people would be wary of having their blood drawn by an officer on the hood of their police vehicle,” said Steve Oberman, chairman of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ committee on driving while intoxicated.

For years, defense lawyers in Idaho advised clients to always refuse breath tests, Christine Starr, a prosecutor in Ada County, said. When the state toughened the penalties for refusing the tests a few years ago, the problem lessened, but it is still the main reason that drunken-driving cases go to trial in the Boise region, Ms. Starr said.

Idaho had a 20 percent breath test refusal rate in 2005, compared with 22 percent nationally, according to a study by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration.

Ms. Starr said she hoped the new system would cut down on the number of drunken-driving trials.

The officer phlebotomists are generally trained under the same program as other phlebotomists in their state, but under a highly compressed schedule. The officers are trained to take blood from the elbow crease, the forearm and the back of the hand. If none are accessible, they are instructed to take the suspect to a hospital for testing.

Though most legal experts agree that blood tests measure blood alcohol more accurately than breath tests, Mr. Oberman said they could be fraught with problems, too. Vials can be mixed up, preservative levels in the tubes used to collect the blood can be off or the blood can be stored improperly, causing it to ferment and have a higher alcohol content.

Mr. Oberman said law enforcement agencies should also be concerned “about possible malpractice cases over somebody who was not properly trained.”

Alan Haywood, the law enforcement phlebotomy coordinator in Arizona, is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas. Mr. Haywood said that officers were exposed to some extra on-the-job risk if they drew blood, but that good training and safe practices reduced the concerns.

In Phoenix, Detective Kemp Layden, who oversees drug recognition, phlebotomy and field sobriety, said there were about 120 officers certified to draw blood. Typically, a suspect is brought to a precinct or mobile booking van for the blood draw.

Under the state’s implied consent law, drivers who refuse to voluntarily submit to the test lose their license for a year, so most comply. For the approximately 5 percent who refuse, the officer obtains a search warrant from an on-call judge and the suspect can be restrained if needed to obtain a sample, Detective Layden said.

Between 300 to 400 blood tests are done in an average month in Phoenix, the nation’s fifth-largest city. During holiday months that number can rise to 500, said Detective Layden, who reviews each case to make sure legal procedures were followed.

From the examiner.com:

As I rolled down the window, the officer leaned down and stated, "I’m informing you, that you’re being recorded. I clocked you at 70 miles per hour in a 55; could I see your license, registration and proof of insurance please?"

No one in their right mind ever wants to hear those words! No matter the situation, it’s uncomfortable. Even ignoring the potential fine, it could result in much higher insurance costs. Worse yet are the words, "Sir, will you step out of the car?"

First thing I did was, interrupt his comment and replied "no problem" to the part of his notification that I was being recorded. As he continued, I began to nod my head agreeing that I’d sped and immediately followed with an explanation why.

I can imagine how nervous I’d have been, had I been impaired.

I had to have been and looked very disheveled - - - he agreed.

When I told him I’d just spent 3 days on the ocean and I was physically torn up and exhausted, his reply was, "I can see that."

"Huh", I thought immediately. Guess it was obvious, all the way down to the burger sauce slopped down the front of my t-shirt. Still, his response caught me off guard – an indication as to part of what I’d learn a couple days later.

The odd part was, the timing. I had already set up an appointment to interview (for this column): Senior Officer and Drug Evaluation Classification Program Coordinator, Michael Iwai of the Oregon State Police.

Wednesday, after my drive down to Salem, Michael was going about explaining how unlikely it is that the officer would miss any signs of possible impaired driving - - - I’d just asked a pointed question.

As part of Michael’s answer, the trooper’s comment on highway 20, ("I can see that."), immediately came back to me. From the instant the trooper had pulled in behind me and ‘lit me up’ he’d been observing ... looking for signs.

These men are trained to do their job in such a way … they don’t miss a thing, and Michael is the man who just happens to facilitate that. The irony of the timing of the situation though, did not escape me. Michael’s precise and thorough explanations and answers made me see how he was the right man for the job he’s in and how well he trains the troopers in the field.

No two ways about it; Michael’s job is to make the roads safer … to take the impaired drivers off the streets and highways; Michael and the men he trains are extremely good at what they do; trust me.

It’s past time to wake up; there’s a relatively new, and awesome enforcement tool each of the 205 troopers trained so far, have as their foundation. Years ago, there may have been gaps in the officers’ training; there are no more "gaps".

This training gives an incredible insight into the impaired drug user. It’s no longer just about alcohol. Because of Michael’s training, this new Drug Evaluation Classification Program (DECP) they’re each a "Drug Recognition Expert." That’s not just a title … it's there because they've qualified in a comprehensive program; it consists of hours of rigorous training … the same program exists across 45 states - foreign nations as well.

If you’ve crossed the line, and been taken into custody, after the 12-step investigation, the DRE officer will even be able to tell you … what category of drug, or specific drug you’re high on! The training has reached that high and precise a level.

This program, the passion and professionalism of Michael and the other DRE / troopers, and the harsh penalties for those found guilty, have significantly improved the safety on our highways. Again, trust me; if you drive impaired you’ll be sorry.

From the Associated Press:

It seemed too horrendous even to imagine. But the case of the mother who caused a deadly wrong-way crash while drunk and stoned is part of a disturbing trend: Women in the U.S. are drinking more, and drunken-driving arrests among women are rising rapidly while falling among men.

And some of those women, as in the New York case, are getting behind the wheel with kids in the back.

Men still drink more than women and are responsible for more drunken-driving cases. But the gap is narrowing, and among the reasons cited are that women are feeling greater pressures at work and home, they are driving more, and they are behaving more recklessly.

"Younger women feel more empowered, more equal to men, and have been beginning to exhibit the same uninhibited behaviors as men," said Chris Cochran of the California Office of Traffic Safety.

Another possible reason cited for the rising arrests: Police are less likely to let women off the hook these days.

Nationwide, the number of women arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs was 28.8 percent higher in 2007 than it was in 1998, while the number of men arrested was 7.5 percent lower, according to FBI figures that cover about 56 percent of the country.

Nearly 250 youngsters were killed in alcohol-related crashes in the U.S. in 2007, and most of them were passengers in the car with the impaired driver, according to the National Highway Safety Administration.

"Drunk drivers often carry their kids with them," said MADD's Hurley. "It's the ultimate form of child abuse."

Arrests of drunken mothers with children in the car remain rare, but police officers can generally list a few.

The increase in arrests comes as women are drinking excessively more than in the past.

One federal study found that the number of women who reported abusing alcohol (having at least four drinks in a day) rose from 1.5 percent to 2.6 percent over the 10-year period that ended in 2002. For women ages 30 to 44, the number more than doubled, from 1.5 percent to 3.3 percent.

The problem has caught the attention of the federal government. The Transportation Department's annual crackdown on drunken driving, which begins later this month, will focus on women.

"There's the impression out there that drunk driving is strictly a male issue, and it is certainly not the case," said Rae Tyson, spokesman for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. "There are a number of parts of the country where, in fact, the majority of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes are female."

Unlike men, women tend to drink at home and alone, which allows them to conceal a problem more easily.

Because of this, they seek treatment less often than men, and when they do, it is at a later stage, often when something catastrophic has already happened, said Dr. Petros Levounis, director of the Addiction Institute of New York at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital Center.

"Our society has taught us that women have an extra burden to be the perfect mothers and perfect wives and perfect daughters and perfect everything," Levounis said. "They tend to go to great lengths to keep everything intact from an external viewpoint while internally, they are in ruins."

In the current recession, women's incomes have become more important because so many men have lost their jobs, experts say. Men are helping out more at home, but working mothers still have the bulk of the child rearing responsibilities.

"Because of that, they have a bigger burden then most men do," said clinical psychologist Carol Goldman. "We have to look at the pressures on women these days. They have to be the supermom."

And just becoming a parent doesn't mean people will stop using drugs or alcohol, Ducharme said: "If you have a real addictive personality, just having a child isn't going to make the difference."

From the Washington Traffic Safety Commission:

Participating in this summer’s Drive Hammered, Get Nailed enforcement campaign are the Shelton and Squaxin Island Police Departments, the Mason County Sheriff’s Office and the Washington State Patrol, with the support of the Mason County Target Zero Traffic Safety Task Force.

There are numerous myths surrounding impaired driving, chief of which is that one must have consumed alcohol in order to be arrested for DUI. Drivers can become impaired by the use of illegal, prescription, and even over-the-counter drugs, or some combination of these, with or without the presence of alcohol.

OTHER MYTHS ABOUT IMPAIRED DRIVING:

FALSE: You can sober up quickly by drinking coffee, taking a cold shower or consuming an energy drink. TRUTH: Only time will sober you up. It typically takes about one hour for each drink that has been consumed.

FALSE: It’s OK to drive impaired if you are only going a short distance. TRUTH: It is never safe to drive under the influence.

FALSE: My doctor wouldn’t have prescribed the medicine if it wasn’t safe to drive while taking it. TRUTH: Prescription medications can impair you. If the bottle indicates that it is not safe to operate heavy machinery, you should not drive after taking that medication.

FALSE: I can’t be arrested for DUI if I am under a .08. TRUTH: You can be arrested for DUI if your ability to drive is affected by any substance, regardless of your blood alcohol content (BAC).

All of these and many more myths are untrue, yet recognizing and identifying the source of impairment can be complicated.

Today, there is a statewide network of specially trained law enforcement officers able to identify drivers who are under the influence of illegal, prescription, and/or over-the-counter drugs. They are called Drug Recognition Experts (DRE) and they are trained extensively about the differing effects of drugs and/or alcohol on the body.

DRE Trooper Matt Wood, WSP Shelton detachment, says that one of the most common stories he hears from people he stops is that they were “drugged.” He knows it does occur but that most often he finds the drug with the driver. An example was a driver who was impaired on methamphetamine (meth). She crossed the centerline and struck a vehicle head on. She claimed that someone had given her a soda that did not taste right but she drank it anyway. Multiple bags of meth were found in her vehicle and in her shirt. She said she had not used any of the meth but was keeping it for someone else, but her blood results came back positive for meth. She was convicted of vehicular assault for injuries to the driver she hit.

In Washington State, the DRE program and toxicology testing are resulting in better identification of the effects of drugs on drivers. Between 1998 and 2007, drug-involved traffic deaths increased by 150 percent. During this time, the number of deceased drivers tested for drugs increased by 60 percent.

It is also important to emphasize that any law enforcement officer can arrest a driver suspected of DUI.

Impaired driving is the leading cause of traffic deaths in Washington. Last year, impaired drivers contributed to the deaths of nearly half of the 522 people who died on Washington’s roadways. The 233 impaired driver-involved deaths in 2008 represent a decrease of 40 fatalities compared to the previous five-year average.

Nationally, there were almost 13,000 people killed by impaired drivers during 2007. Those preventable deaths represent an average of one person being killed every 40 minutes in the United States.

From the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (pdf file):

Over the last four decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and/or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety have conducted four national surveys to estimate the prevalence of drinking and driving in the U.S. These surveys utilized a stratified random sample of weekend nighttime drivers in the contiguous 48 States. The first National Roadside Survey (NRS) was conducted in 1973, followed by national surveys of alcohol use by drivers in 1986, 1996, and 2007.

The 2007 NRS included, for the first time, measures to estimate the use of other potentially impairing drugs by drivers. Prior roadside surveys had collected breath samples to determine blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Due to developments in analytic toxicology, NHTSA determined it would be feasible in the 2007 survey to collect oral fluid and/or blood samples to determine driver use of a wide variety of other potentially impairing drugs.

The 2007 NRS was designed to produce national estimates of alcohol and drug use by drivers. Thus, the use rates shown below are national prevalence rates calculated from the percentage of subjects using alcohol or drugs and adjusted with an appropriate weighting scheme.

Results of the 2007 Survey: Alcohol

The 2007 NRS found a dramatic decline (71%) in the number of drinking drivers with BACs at or above the current legal limit of 0.08 g/dL* on weekend nights compared to previous surveys. Similar declines were found at other BAC levels. For example, the percentage of drinking drivers (any positive BAC) declined almost as much over this time period, but one cannot infer impairment at very low BACs.

The percentage of male drivers with a BAC over the current legal limit of 0.08 g/dL was 42% higher than the percentage of female drivers with illegal BACs. Over 2% of the weekend nighttime drivers had illegal BACs (>0.08g/dL) while only 0.1% of daytime drivers had illegal BACs.

Time of day made a big difference in the likelihood of drivers having illegal BACs. Looking just at Friday daytime (9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.), early nighttime (10:00 p.m. to midnight), and late nighttime (1 a.m. to 3 a.m. Saturday), only 0.2% of drivers had illegal BACs during the daytime, while 1.2% had illegal BACs during the early nighttime and 4.8% had illegal BACs during the late nighttime.

Substantial differences were observed in the percentage of drivers with illegal BACs by vehicle type. Motorcycle riders were more than twice as likely as passenger car drivers to have had BACs > 0.08 g/dL (5.6% compared to 2.3%). Pickup truck drivers were the next most likely vehicle type to have illegal BACs (3.3%).

Underage drivers are of special interest since they have been shown to be a high risk of crash involvement when drinking and driving. The percentage of underage drivers in fatal crashes with a 0.08 g/dL or higher BAC decreased from 1973 to 1996. However, from 1996 to 2007, there has been a slight increase. The NRS data do not show this same trend; the percentage of underage drivers with 0.08 g/dL or higher BACs has been decreasing throughout this time period.

Results of the 2007 Survey: Drugs

Participants in the 2007 NRS were asked to provide an oral fluid and blood sample in addition to a breath sample. The oral fluid and blood samples were tested for the presence of a large number of potentially impairing drugs. The list of impairing drugs covered illegal, prescription, and over-the-counter products, including stimulants, sedatives, antidepressants, marijuana, and narcotic analgesics.

Based on the oral fluid results, more nighttime drivers (14.4%) were drug-positive then were daytime drivers (11.0%). Based on the blood test results which were administered only at nighttime, 13.8% of the drivers were drug-positive. Using the combined results of either or both oral fluid and blood tests, 16.3% of the nighttime drivers were drug-positive.

The most commonly detected drugs were Marijuana (THC) at 8.6%, Cocaine at 3.9%, and Methamphetamine at 1.3% of nighttime drivers.

The full significance of these findings for highway safety will only become clear when ongoing and additional research conducted by NHTSA and others is completed. NHTSA is responding to these findings with programs to enable law enforcement officers to recognize drug impairment, and education for prosecutors and judges on factors associated with drug-impaired driving cases.

Under the Drug Evaluation and Classification program, NHTSA has prepared nearly 1,000 instructors and trained more than 6,000 officers in 46 states. Officers receive extensive training to recognize symptoms of driver impairment by drugs other than alcohol.

NHTSA has also initiated a follow-on study to the 2007 NRS to identify which drugs are associated with higher crash risk. This case-control study will include in-depth investigations of a large number of crashes of all severities. The proportion of drug use by crash-involved drivers will be compared to that of a similar sample of non-crash involved drivers to determine if drug use is associated with crash involvement. Findings from this large-scale study are expected in 2012.

From Cody Enterprise:

It’s been more than a year since Cody police officers underwent training in identifying the wide variety of impairing substances drivers use before taking the wheel, and police say it’s making a difference.

“There’s more of an awareness,” Sgt. Jason Stafford said. “It’s made our street officers more aware of what else is out there.”

Traditionally, DWUIs meant alcohol impairment, but increasingly police see drivers using everything from illegal drugs to prescription pills to household chemicals.

“Many people think DWUI is alcohol, but it’s any substance that impairs you,” Sgt. Stafford said.

For the third time in less than two years, a young driver apparently huffing “Dust-Off” cleaner caused major damage two weeks ago. Last month, a Cody woman was sent to prison after she took painkillers and caused a head-on collision, seriously injuring the other driver.

Stafford was among four officers - one for each shift plus one - who last year attended Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) training in Laramie and Phoenix.

They practiced evaluation on volunteers in a holding cell and saw “many scary things,” such as the effects of using methamphetamine and heroine, Stafford said.

They learned to identify signs of impairment in drivers with a low blood alcohol content.

The DRE program is new to Wyoming but common in California, where it originated.

While it’s legal to buy Dust-Off, state law prohibits inhaling it, and using it and driving counts as a DWUI.

“If there’s two or three cans of Dust-Off or five bottles of cough syrup, that’s an indicator,” Stafford said.

Police now look for pill bottles, too, things they might have missed if they focused only on empty beer cans.