DUID prevalence in Colorado's DUI citations

Colorado drugged driving prevalence and impaired driving conviction rates: Effects of impaired driving definitions and a 5-nanogram limit for delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol

Objectives: How prevalent is drugged driving among Colorado drivers convicted of Driving Under the Influence (DUI)? What are the conviction rates of Colorado drivers charged with DUI, including impairment by marijuana's delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)? Is Colorado's THC permissible inference law effective? To answer these questions, this report analyzes data published primarily in appendices of Colorado drugged driving reports.Methods: In 2017 Colorado began requiring annual analyses of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenses, including causes and judicial consequences of DUI offenses. These analyses are performed by the Division of Criminal Justice's Office of Research and Statistics (ORS) within the Department of Public Safety. Each analysis requires ORS to link toxicology and court data bases. Data linking enables reporting of charges and convictions by categories including alcohol only, THC only, and polydrug use (two or more drugs simultaneously). Reports have been published annually for 5 years, the latest published in 2023 which covers case filings for 2020.Results: A rough estimate of one-half of the state's DUI filings were attributed to drug use and half were attributed to alcohol only. The largest component of drugged driving was polydrug impairment, rather than impairment by a single drug like THC. Conviction rates in 2020 were 91% for alcohol only, 90% for polydrug cases, and 72% for THC only. Blood drug levels and law structure (per se, permissible inference, DUI definition) affected conviction rates significantly by defendant subsets. THC conviction rates in 2020 ranged from 11% to 100%, depending on blood drug levels and the legal charges.Conclusions: Efforts to educate the public about the dangers of drugged driving should emphasize polydrug impairment, not simply THC impairment. States should analyze data on causes and consequences of DUI arrests to understand what their drugged driving problems are and what they are not. Non-zero drug per se levels and defining DUI as "incapable of safe driving" can severely reduce the effectiveness of DUI laws.

A review of drug abuse in recently reported cases of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) in Asia, USA, and Europe

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) is considered a serious issue related to the abuse of illegal drugs. DUID cases, including deaths, are being continuously reported in Asia, USA, and Europe. This literature review focuses on illegal drug abuse in recent DUID cases reported in Asia, USA, and Europe. To determine illegal drug abuse in DUID suspects, previous studies collected and analyzed biological samples, such as blood, urine, oral fluids, and hair. In addition, there were forensic autopsies and surveys for investigation of illegal drugs in DUID cases and drivers. In previous studies, ketamine, morphine, methamphetamine (MA), and khat were mainly reported in Asia, whereas amphetamine, benzodiazepines (BZDs), and cannabinoids were mainly reported in USA, and synthetic cannabinoids (SCs), opiates, and cocaine were mainly reported in Europe. Since DUID suspects related to illegal drugs have been frequently reported in Asia, USA, and Europe, there is a need to plan for national monitoring for drivers or motor vehicles to regulate and prevent drug abuse and relevant DUID cases.

Ability to monitor driving under the influence of marijuana among non-fatal motor-vehicle crashes: An evaluation of the Colorado electronic accident reporting system

INTRODUCTION

As more states legalize medical/recreational marijuana use, it is important to determine if state motor-vehicle surveillance systems can effectively monitor and track driving under the influence (DUI) of marijuana. This study assessed Colorado's Department of Revenue motor-vehicle crash data system, Electronic Accident Reporting System (EARS), to monitor non-fatal crashes involving driving under the influence (DUI) of marijuana.

METHODS

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines on surveillance system evaluation were used to assess EARS' usefulness, flexibility, timeliness, simplicity, acceptability, and data quality. We assessed system components, interviewed key stakeholders, and analyzed completeness of Colorado statewide 2014 motor-vehicle crash records.

RESULTS

EARS contains timely and complete data, but does not effectively monitor non-fatal motor-vehicle crashes related to DUI of marijuana. Information on biological sample type collected from drivers and toxicology results were not recorded into EARS; however, EARS is a flexible system that can incorporate new data without increasing surveillance system burden.

CONCLUSIONS

States, including Colorado, could consider standardization of drug testing and mandatory reporting policies for drivers involved in motor-vehicle crashes and proactively address the narrow window of time for sample collection to improve DUI of marijuana surveillance. Practical applications: The evaluation of state motor-vehicle crash systems' ability to capture crashes involving drug impaired driving (DUID) is a critical first step for identifying frequency and risk factors for crashes related to DUID.