TESTIMONY OF THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

S.B. No. 16 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE ADULT USE OF CANNABIS.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
March 2, 2020

The Division of Criminal Justice supports the traffic safety provisions contained in Sections 10-17 of S.B. No. 16, An Act Concerning the Adult Use of Cannabis, and respectfully recommends that the Committee enact these provisions even if recreational cannabis is not legalized. The bill contains some important public safety measures that will assist in protecting motorists on Connecticut roadways.    

The Division would further recommend establishing a “Cannabis Control Commission” similar that in Massachusetts to not only ensure equity in the cannabis market but to provide oversight for important public safety and health concerns associated with cannabis consumption. The Division would suggest revising Section 18 of the bill to include at least one physician and the Chief State’s Attorney or his designee as a representative of the Division.   

As we stated in testimony to this Committee last year, the legalization of the use of recreational marijuana is a policy decision that rests exclusively with the General Assembly and Governor. As such, the Division takes no position on that question. We must, however, again stress in the strongest terms the need to provide reassurances that passage of this bill will not have a negative impact on highway safety.

Section 10 of this bill updates General Statutes § 14-227a, which is our impaired driving statute.  It allows a drug influence evaluation, which is conducted by a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) to assess drug impairment for motorists, to be admitted into evidence in court proceedings.  Maine has enacted a similar statute admitting this type of evidence[1]. Currently, Connecticut has 64 DREs who are certified by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) under the Drug Evaluation Classification program. These are very experienced and skilled law enforcement professionals who undergo rigorous training on detecting drug impairment followed by field training employing the DRE 12-step evaluation. The admissibility of this type of evidence is crucial to assist in detecting dangerous drug impaired drivers and providing evidence of impairment. 

Section 10 also allows evidence that a driver refused to submit to the nontestimonial portion a DRE evaluation.[2] Unlike alcohol, which has a known blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 percent at which everyone is deemed to be impaired, there is no established scientifically validated per se drug level to assess drugged driver impairment. Accordingly, the DRE evaluation is a crucial and necessary assessment.

Section 10 also allows the court to take judicial notice that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) is an impairing substance. Cannabis, which is the drug containing THC, is the drug most frequently found in drivers involved in vehicle crashes, including those with fatalities. It is well documented that cannabis impairs judgment, motor coordination and reaction time.[3] Studies confirm that there is a relationship between elevated blood THC levels and impaired driving ability.[4]

Lastly, Section 10 permits a police officer to switch to a different chemical test for good cause shown “including” to detect drugs other than or in addition to alcohol. This is a fair and sensible change that allows the officer to switch to a urine or blood test to obtain both a blood alcohol concentration and/or other drug test result if the breath instrument malfunctions. 

Sections 11 through 14 of the bill effectuate necessary changes in General Statutes § 14-227b, which is our implied consent law. These sections allow the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to suspend a person’s license if there is substantial evidence that the driver was impaired by drugs or alcohol or both. Under our current statute, drivers who have been arrested for drug impaired driving receive no license suspension. This change remedies that oversight. It eliminates the .08 per se requirement for license suspension and provides that drivers with a BAC of .05 coupled with the presence of another drug constitutes an “elevated blood alcohol content.” It also provides a license suspension for drivers under the age of twenty-one who test positive for one-half of nanogram or greater of THC.[5] These sections also provide a license suspension for refusal to submit to the nontestimonial portion of the DRE evaluation.

Section 15 directs the state’s designated Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor (TSRP) in the Division of Criminal Justice to provide educational and training materials on the DRE program to the judicial branch. This will ensure that our courts are knowledgeable and up-to-date on this national and international drug impairment evaluation program.

Finally, Sections 16 and 17 update our state’s impaired boating laws in a similar fashion as those changes proposes in Section 10 through 15 of the bill. These changes mirror those contained in Section 10 through 14 of the bill and are important safety measures for those who utilize our many waterways.

For all of the reasons stated, the Division of Criminal Justice urges this Committee to adopt the above-mentioned traffic safety measures in S.B. 16, or absent the legalization of recreational cannabis, as stand-alone provisions to further promote traffic safety.

In conclusion, the Division wishes to thank the Committee for affording this opportunity to provide input on this matter. We would be happy to provide any additional information the Committee might require or to answer any questions that you might have.