The Senate Judiciary Committee is poised to compromise on a bill about driving under the influence of drugs after wrestling all week with how to keep unsafe drivers off the road without infringing on civil liberties.
Although the committee did not vote, it plans to see a draft next week that sets the standard for drugged driving at a level that “interferes with safe operation of a vehicle in the slightest degree.”
Senators said they object to the House version of the bill, but have wrestled for several weeks with how to modify it.
The House version lowered the drugged driving standard to align it with the “under the influence” standard for alcohol.
There is a second standard for alcohol of a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.08 or higher. Such a standard does not exist in Vermont for drugs, although some states have adopted what is known as a per se standard for certain drugs.
But because “under the influence” of alcohol means “a person’s full mental or physical abilities are diminished or impaired to the slightest degree,” senators said they feel that constitutes a zero-tolerance standard for alcohol.
Prosecutors and police are pushing for this bill because they say the current drugged driving standard is nearly impossible to prove.
With many people struggling with drug addiction and medical marijuana legalized, drugged driving is an increasing concern, they say. The Defender General’s Office, on the contrary, said the number of drugged driving cases has not increased.
The current standard for drugs is “under the influence…to a degree which renders the person incapable of driving safely.”
“I want to keep impaired drivers off the road,” said Sen. Jeanette White, D-Windham. But she said the House version casts the net too wide and will not provide for people who are not impaired by drugs.
Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn on Friday said the proposed compromise won’t get prosecutors closer to their goal.
“I think it just opens up another avenue of litigation,” Flynn said.
Flynn said he does not want officers to have to wait until a driver is swerving before stopping them. An officer should be able to stop a driver for a burned-out tail light and, with reasonable suspicion, determine whether he or she is under the influence of drugs.
Law enforcement argued that with alcohol, officers simply must prove a person is under the influence, not that he or she operated unsafely.
Defender General Matthew Valerio countered that argument, saying it is proven alcohol impairs driving whereas some drugs do not impair driving.
“You can be under the influence of drugs and not impaired to the slightest degree,” Valerio said.
