Roadside Drug Testing....

[hoptis]

John De Jong is going to sue Victoria Police.

Cleared drug-test driver sues state
By Selma Milovanovic
June 1, 2005

The Ballarat van driver wrongly identified as the world's first motorist to be positive for drugs in a roadside saliva test is suing the State Government for defamation.

Courier John de Jong, 40, is seeking unspecified exemplary and/or aggravated damages for harm to his reputation after he was identified in the media when the Victoria Police's world-first roadside drug-testing trial began on December 13.

Police originally said a positive reading had been recorded for methylamphetamine in a roadside test in Yarraville. Mr de Jong tested positive for cannabis in a later test in a police bus. But further police and independent lab tests returned negative results.

"I would just like the whole of Australia to see someone from the Police Department say: 'We got it wrong that day and we apologise,' " Mr de Jong said yesterday. "I didn't do anything wrong."

In a statement of claim filed in the Supreme Court, he says the police, through Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) Bob Hastings, had told journalists he tested positive in the first test and also in the more sophisticated test in the police bus.

He claims television broadcasts were understood to mean he was a "druggie" who should be off the road and a hypocrite who, after backing testing, returned a positive reading.

The writ says the Victoria Police was "recklessly indifferent" to damage caused to him.

The father of two said yesterday his life had been shattered by the incident. "It's always in my face, everywhere I go. I want to forget about it, but people bring it up all the time."

The Government and Victoria Police declined to comment as the case is before the courts. The Sunday Age said this week that Mr Hastings wrote to Mr de Jong's solicitors in December saying that at no stage did police "facilitate or promote the identification of any individual involved in the roadside drug testing and consistently stressed to the media the importance of privacy".

From The Age

Drug-test driver sues
Norrie Ross, law reporter
1 Jun 2005

A DRIVER who became a victim of Victoria's roadside drug test fiasco is suing the State Government.

John De Jong, 40, said being falsely named and shamed as a drug taker had had a devastating effect on him and his family.

The van driver, identified as the first in the world to return a positive result in a roadside drug test, said a Victoria Police refusal to apologise had forced his hand.

"I think I have to take legal action. I don't really see myself as having a choice," Mr De Jong said.

"I did ask for an apology and nothing came back."

The Herald Sun first raised questions on the accuracy of the testing regimen. The Government was forced to try to defend roadside drug testing.

Mr De Jong said that he could not forget being identified to the media as driving with amphetamines and cannabis in his system.

"It's something I think about every day. It's always in my head," he said.

"I meet people in the street and there's always a comment somewhere.

"It's not only affected me, but also my wife and daughters. It has been devastating."

Mr De Jong was just the fourth driver tested when police set up their new drug bus for roadside saliva testing in Whitehall St, Yarraville, on December 13 last year.

Police command had organised for a large media contingent to witness the first use of the drug bus.

The media was told Mr De Jong had tested positive to the presence of cannabis and amphetamines and the information was broadcast by four television stations that evening.

When he returned to his Ballarat home he found his wife Kay and daughters Danielle, 17, and Belinda, 13, in tears after seeing him on the evening news.

The Herald Sun then revealed an independent laboratory had cleared Mr De Jong and the result was later confirmed by the police lab.

Law firm Slater and Gordon yesterday lodged a defamation writ in the Supreme Court on behalf of Mr De Jong.

The statement of claim alleged Assistant Commissioner Bob Hastings identified Mr De Jong as testing positive to drugs.

It alleged this information was broadcast on channels 7, 9, 10 and the ABC. It was also claimed Mr De Jong was called a hypocrite for saying on camera, before being tested, the drug bus was a good thing.

He is claiming aggravated and or exemplary damages because the police refused to apologise and were recklessly indifferent to the potential damage to his reputation.

Mr De Jong said money wasn't the main motivation. "I'd like to have the police admit they messed up that day," he said.

Solicitor Katalin Blond, of Slater and Gordon, said police should have anticipated what happened.

"They should have foreseen the possibility of someone testing positive at the roadside and later being cleared," Ms Blond said.

A spokesman for Victoria Police said they would make no comment on the lawsuit.

From Herald Sun

 

[macca macca]

Maybe this might prompt them to remove the roadside tests sooner, rather than later...

 

[deano]

Maybe this might prompt them to remove the roadside tests sooner, rather than later...

We can only hope, I'm all for safer driving, but against revenue raising and "second chance busts"

 

[deano]

I've spoken to the doctor at VicRoads who was doing the testing for all of the kits they use, and he basically said that the main advantage of these kits would be to put more dollars into the industry, and give a false sense of confindence.

From the testing they did only 2 kits proved to be even remotely reliable, they are the ones they are using. Apparently these ones won't pick up anything the majority of the time.

For me, I'd prefer to know I'm under by watching/limiting my drug use if I need to drive, so I know I'm clean. The last thing you would want is to test yourself on one of these things, come up negative, then get pulled over and done 10 minutes down the road.

Having said all that, if anyone does buy any of these, I'd be interested to see the results of any testing they do.

They are pretty cheap, I might buy one and test it out. If they were any where near as accurate as the initial saliva tests I'd be happy, I'm interested in finding out if I test positive the morning after. At least get some kind of indication of what result I'd get in a road side stop. I never smoke and drive these days because I have children.

 

[sara_tonnin]

i found an article the local paper a few days ago about drug driver testing in victoria, mainly talking about areas outside the main metropolitan region -

"Insp Beattie also said police were not relying solely on the random drug test trail to detect drivers affected by drugs.
“People should not be thinking the only way they can get caught driving under the influence of drugs is being intercepted by a random drug testing bus,” he said.
“We’ve got established processes in place to detect drug affected drivers, and they will become more vigorous as we become better at it,” he said."

this made me wonder what are the other established processes they are refering to?
i know people who have been pulled over while under the influence of drugs and have not been detected, thats beside the point though... what i want to know , as stupid as it may sound - is their the possibility that a cop can pull you over, decide that you look like your on drugs and force some kind of repurcusion?

 

[mongman]

I suspect the mysterious "other methods" the article reffers to are things like pupil dilation, I have seen a chart of pupil sizes in a police station. Other things like perception of time and so forth, I don't know how legal it would be though if they attempted to charge you based on this. I suspect they would need to take blood or do an EMIT test, I don't know if an officers perception of pupil size and so forth would be foundation for demanding you submit to a blood test though....
I really think that its basically scare tactics, if police have had the ability to do this it would have been widely mentioned in the past.

 

[charlesbronson]

Check out VelocideX's posts on page 1 of this thread. Here is a summary that explains the "established processes" (sobriety test, detainment for blood test etc.) they are referring to:

Originally posted by VelocideX
Some clarifications on the law in NSW

Its already the case that if the police have reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence of drugs, they are allowed to detain you and take you to a hospital where you are required to undergo a blood test. That blood test is more than sufficient evidence to convince a court beyond reasonable doubt.

Refusal to submit to the blood test is a criminal offence and carries the same penalty that failing the blood test does.

He has posted up relevant chunks of the NSW legislation that address these police procedures on page 1.

 

[mongman]

charlesbronson: I was reffering to what the exact procedure is to determine that the driver is under the effect of drugs. I don't think they just spot phat pants and detain you..... they would need to have strictly determined physiological effects to look for.

 

[deano]

I suspect the mysterious "other methods" the article reffers to are things like pupil dilation, I have seen a chart of pupil sizes in a police station. Other things like perception of time and so forth, I don't know how legal it would be though if they attempted to charge you based on this. I suspect they would need to take blood or do an EMIT test, I don't know if an officers perception of pupil size and so forth would be foundation for demanding you submit to a blood test though....
I really think that its basically scare tactics, if police have had the ability to do this it would have been widely mentioned in the past.

They could be using the "haircut & tattoo" method.

 

[sara_tonnin]

thanks for the input people, cleared that up for me a bit.

 

[charlesbronson]

Originally posted by mongman
charlesbronson: I was reffering to what the exact procedure is to determine that the driver is under the effect of drugs.

These are my thoughts, although I do not know, with any solid certainty:

There is no exact procedure - there are many things that a cop could decide are sufficient to arouse reasonable suspicion of drug impairment.

It can range from erratic driving, to foaming at the mouth, to nodding off at the wheel, to having a shaky jaw and phat pants, or any combination.

Generally (probably) a police officer will not pursue impairment testing procedures where there is just a suspicion of drug intoxication, and nothing more solid, probably because of all the shit they would get from a court if it was determined that they demanded a blood test of a driver without reasonable suspicion first.

At the moment I would say the key issue is whether or not any driving ability impairment is noticeable --> this would be the initial reason that they would pull you over. If the driving was bad enough for police to pull you over, and then they spot other things that hint to drug intoxication, they are likely to pursue it further.

 

[mongman]

I agree completely, your probably right on the money there. It must be a difficult all to make as an officer, probably why we don't hear about more cases of this happening.

I remember reading some place that officers go through a training course to roughly assess a persons level of drug intoxication. I think from memory it is mainly to judge the risk the person may pose when attempting to make an arrest.
Maybe I will do some research into the exact procedure used here in Australia. Would people be interested in the result of this?

 

[phase_dancer]

In the US he's/ she's called a drug recognition expert

See earlier in this thread

 

[Fry-d-]

Part of an email I received from the Victorian Justice people regarding the Roadside Drug Testing, I feel its relevant and important enough information to quote in this thread. Nothing most of us probably don't already know but mentions the exact tests they use if anyone wanted to try and look them up and kind of indicates the testing is here to stay.

Random roadside drug testing of drivers has been introduced for two drugs, THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, and methamphetamine, commonly known as "speed". There is good evidence that these drugs are factors in a significant proportion of road crash casualties.
The devices used have been subject to a comprehensive testing regime that has shown them to be reliable and accurate. They will not pick up prescription drugs or drugs purchased across the counter, such as cold and flu tablets.

While some teething problems occurred in the first few days of the program, overall it has been a success, with police randomly testing 6,270 drivers in Victoria up to 29 May 2005.

69 drivers have been confirmed by laboratory tests to have been driving with prohibited drugs in their saliva or blood. Fines or prosecutions have already been issued in most of these cases while some are still being processed. Samples from another nineteen drivers who tested positive at the initial roadside screening have yet to be tested in the laboratory. Three drivers refused to provide a sample and will consequently be issued with summonses for a court hearing.

The process undertaken is for a preliminary road side screening test involving the sampling of saliva from a driver. Should the driver return a negative result they are not detained further. Should a positive to either methamphetamine or cannabis be obtained, the driver is requested to undertake a second test in a specially equipped drug bus, similar to an alcohol testing bus. The devices used are the Securetec drugwipe and the Cozart rapiscan at the roadside and in the bus respectively. You can find out more about these devices by visiting the manufacturer’s websites at www.securetec.net, and www.cozart.co.uk.

Neither of these preliminary tests on their own can result in a drug driving prosecution. Rather, should the driver test positive to the bus based test, then the sample taken is split into two. One half is sent to an accredited laboratory (currently the Victorian Institute for Forensic Medicine), which tests the sample using Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry, a method which is considered the “gold standard” in analytical testing. The other half is given to the driver who may have their own independent tests undertaken if they so wish. The laboratory testing is able to definitively distinguish between methamphetamine and legal amphetamines.

It is only when a positive test result to either methamphetamine or cannabis is obtained from the sample tested by the accredited laboratory that a prosecution is commenced. This process ensures that no one is subject to an unwarranted prosecution.

There are compelling reasons why the Government has introduced random roadside drug tests. Firstly, there is the evidence from tests undertaken on the blood of people killed in road crashes. Risk analysis techniques developed by the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine show that drug using drivers are at a significantly higher risk of crash involvement that the general public.

Secondly, there is now good evidence from numerous studies worldwide, including from specifically commissioned driving simulator studies at both Swinburne and Monash Universities in Victoria, that methamphetamine and cannabis, the drugs currently targeted, significantly degrade driving performance.

While some drivers believe that their drug use does not result in dangerous driving, both the local and overseas studies, a number of which involved the administering of drugs to volunteer subjects, demonstrate a level of impairment in drug drivers that clearly makes them a risk to themselves and other road users.

Just as it took many years for the community to accept that drink driving was dangerous, so too there is now a reluctance for some people to accept the debilitating effects of drug use on driving performance. In contrast, Governments are required to take a responsible and dispassionate view of the evidence. The Victorian Government did this and believes the evidence is compelling. Drug use is a significant contributor to road casualties. That is why the Government will continue to pursue random road-side drug testing.

 

[deano]

Just what protection does this offer a person anyway?

I mean; I know of three instances where previous non-recordable convictions have been read aloud in court by the magistrate when reviewing past criminal history. Two of these people did have some history, but for one bloke it was his only conviction ever!!

Yes this has happened to me twice, once in queensland, once in victoria.

The read out charges from childrens court, and an offense with no conviction recorded, both times.

I'm not sure it made a difference in Victoria, but in Queensland I was doing community service for months

 

[hoptis]

It's been previously mentioned before that testing for drugs in drivers is in effect, a form of pseudo-legalisation of drugs.

The following is a letter to the editor published in the Emerald Hill Weekly, a local paper covering inner city Melbourne bayside suburbs including St Kilda. It's from a member of the Family First party.

Drugs aren't just bad behind the wheel

The message being sent to the law-abiding citizens of the City of Port Phillip by Tim Holding and the ALP through the new "drug driving" laws cannot remain unchallenged. With what logic does someone who is caught under the influence of illicit drugs receive less of a penalty than someone who consumes alcohol?

Last time I checked, alcohol was legally available everywhere; but these illicit drugs can only be purchased from organised criminal syndicates, which in many cases have extensive links to such places as Colombia and the Golden Triangle. Equally, how can it be that someone can ingest illegal drugs yet not be deemed in possession of them?

Apparently the State Government believes only drug-affected persons who drive pose a danger to others. Clearly the police minister hasn't spent any time in St Kilda, where residents regularly have to deal with those affected by drugs who patently aren't driving at the time! The police should be testing everybody regardless.

This decriminalisation by stealth sends the disgraceful message to our kids that illicit drugs are okay - just don't drive while using them. Ultimately, the only winners from the "drug driving" laws are Victoria's drug dealers, and the long-term effect will be an escalation in illicit drug use.

Jeremy C Browne
Family First
St Kilda East

- Emerald Hill Weekly, letters. P10

 

[Ekstasis-//7]

I haven't really heard or read anything recently about the NSW Roadside Drug Testing initiative that was supposed to come in in March. Can anyone comment on this?

Did the NSW Government/Police get cold feet following the false positive fiasco of the first few tested in the Melbourne trial? Or did they bring in the drug testing in NSW and just go for a more stealthy and less publicised trial maybe to avoid the media publicity of the inacuraccy of the tests (as seen in Melbourne)?

 

[hoptis]

Glad someone posted in this thread because I really couldn't be bothered going searching for it.

Tasmania started it's own trials in the last week. The articles below don't report it but I read in Mx that they started by drug testing six truck drivers on the weekend.

Tassie introduces roadside drug testing
12:18 AEST Sat Jul 2 2005
AAP

Tasmania has become the second state to introduce roadside driver drug tests.

Legislation for the kerbside drug-testing came into effect, giving police powers to randomly test drivers for drugs including cannabis and amphetamines.

The legislation follows Victoria's world-first introduction of roadside drug testing in December last year.

Tasmanian Police Minister David Llewellyn said levels of drug usage in Tasmania were much lower than the rest of the nation.

But he said the government was serious about reducing illicit drug use and its impact on road fatalities.

"Tasmania is at the forefront of national reform in this area and we are committed to identifying and appropriately punishing those who use drugs and then recklessly endanger the lives of others by driving on our roads," he said.

Victoria's drug testing had a controversial start after two of the first three drivers to test positive to drugs were later cleared by laboratory analysis of their samples.

Victorian police minister Tim Holding said in April the tests had been modified and police were confident of complete accuracy.

Four months into the state's year-long trial, police said one in every 73 motorists was testing positive to drugs - three times higher than the ratio that tested positive to alcohol.

West Australia and South Australia have both expressed interest in roadside drug tests.

WA has already drafted legislation to adopt the laws, while SA premier Mike Rann said in March he'd like random drug tests in the state as early as next year.

From Ninemsn

Roadside random drug tests kicks off in Tas

Saturday, 2 July 2005. 12:00 (AEST)

Drivers on Tasmanian roads are now subject to random drug testing.

Police can ask drivers to undergo a saliva test to screen for illegal drugs like marijuana and speed.

If the driver tests positive, he or she will then be required to provide a blood sample for laboratory analysis.

Road Safety Task Force chairman Paul Hogan fully supports the new testing regime.

"We see this legislation consistent with what the Government has done over recent years of introducing legislation that can make a meaningful difference to the reduction in the road toll," he said.

"We all know that for too long illicit drugs, and in come cases licit drugs have been involved as the primary cause, of many road crashes."

From ABC

Haven't heard anything more about NSW

 

[Ekstasis-//7]

Have we had any confirmed reports yet of ANY drivers being tested in NSW?

 

[hoptis]

One in 50 drivers fail drug test
By Dan Silkstone, Transport Reporter
July 14, 2005 - 1:53PM

Victoria Police say they are stunned by the number of drivers testing positive to drugs as part of their 12-month roadside testing pilot project.

Results for the first six months of the trial were announced this morning at a conference of top police and other road-safety experts.

While police say they had expected to catch one drug driver for every 300 tests, they are in fact detecting many more.

"We are seeing a rate of around one in 50 tested," said Inspector Ian Cairns from the Police Traffic Alcohol Section.

Police Commissioner Christine Nixon said the results were "frightening."

"It's just been very surprising to us," she said. "Even the experts didn't predict how many people were driving with drugs in their system."

Peter Daly from motorists group the RACV, called on the government to bring forward its review of the trial and decide its future immediately. He said if the trial results were reliable, then the testing should be expanded and the penalties for drug driving reviewed.

Currently, a first offence attracts a penalty of $307 and the loss of 10 demerit points.

In the six-month period, 7207 tests have been conducted and police have confirmed 145 positive results.

Tests have been carried out at all times of day and night, and in locations across Melbourne, but have particularly focused on the freight industry and on weekend "rave parties."

Police say rates of drug driving are highest between 4am and 9:30 am on Sunday mornings.

Of the positive results, 103 tested positive solely for methamphetamines such as speed and ecstasy, while six registered a positive for THC (marijuana) only.

The remainder of the positive results were for multiple drug use.

Police sources said the lower result for THC did not mean marijuana use was less common than amphetamine use. "It is harder to test for," one source said.

Defending early problems with testing including false positive tests, senior traffic police admitted to the conference the testing equipment being used was not the force's preferred technology.

Police said they had to turn to the equipment because of availability problems with their preferred choice.

The pilot project, which involves police taking saliva swabs from motorists, got off to a rocky start when the very first driver tested returned a positive result. The result was later found to be incorrect and the motorist is now taking legal action aginst the government.

Police told the conference that apart from problems in the first few days, all subsequent swabs had later been confirmed by more stringent laboratory testing. "We are confident now that the system is working," Commissioner Nixon said.

The trial had expected to test around 9000 drivers over 12 months, but the program has been expanded with around 12,000 motorists now expected to be tested.

Inspector Cairns said truck drivers and car drivers were testing positive at similar rates.

Car drivers tested positive across the age range 18 to 54, but the majority (68 per cent) were in their twenties. Truck drivers who tested positive tended to be older, with 59 per cent aged in their 30s.

One truck driver has tested positive twice.

From The Age

Also there's a Poll for a short time.