Extreme cold may affect results from roadside drug-screening devices: report

Drug-screening devices that could be used by police to catch impaired drivers at the roadside may be more likely to show drug-positive results in extreme cold, according to a new study by Public Safety Canada.

Between December 2016 and March 2017, police at seven detachments across Canada tested two saliva-screening devices — the Securetec DrugRead and the Alere DDS-2.

• Federal government calls roadside drug-test device trial a success despite cold weather issues

• North Battleford RCMP testing drug-screening devices on drivers

With the federal government having committed to legalizing marijuana by July 1, 2018, the pilot project goal was to test the reliability of the devices as tools for enforcement of drug-impaired drivers.

Sask. tests part of study
Police at the North Battleford RCMP detachment were among 53 officers who were trained to use the devices.

Although the final report on the project gives the devices an overall positive review, it also raises questions about their reliability in certain weather conditions.

The results showed they were proportionately more likely to show drug-positive results in extreme cold temperatures.

The cartridges used in both devices have a suggested operating range above freezing; the Securetec DrugRead's suggested temperature range is between 5 C and 25 C, while the suggested Alere cartridge range is between 15 C and 25 C.

While 64 per cent of all tests occurred outside the suggested temperature range, 80 per cent of all positive results were from tests taken outside the recommended range.

"At present, it is unknown whether this finding is attributable to technical or procedural issues, for example whether the devices are more likely to show positive results when tested in extreme cold temperature," said the report.


An Alere DDS-2 Mobile Test System like the one used in the pilot project. (CBC)

More research needed
It suggests more research is needed on the reliability of the devices in various weather conditions.

The report also recommends that additional measures be taken to keep devices and swabs at operating temperatures in areas with extreme weather conditions.

The samples were collected through random stops and roadblocks, with 80 per cent taken from drivers and 20 per cent from passengers.

Overall positive reviews
In about 90 per cent of the samples taken, police described the devices as "very easy" or "easy" to use.

The report says malfunctions occurred in about 13 per cent of the samples taken, and the majority of those related to the printer functions.

Overall, the report concluded that with the proper training and standard operating procedures, the devices would be a "useful additional tool for Canadian law enforcement to better detect individuals who drive under the influence of drugs."

In addition to the North Battleford RCMP, the project was also carried out by police in Vancouver, Halifax, Toronto, Gatineau and Yellowknife, and by the Ontario Provincial Police.

80 per cent of all positive results were from tests taken outside the recommended range.

lol

taken from drivers and 20 per cent from passengers.

wtf?

why testing passengers?....are they breaking any driving laws?

Earlier this year, the Federal Government invited 24 police officers across Canada to test a pair of devices that claim to screen drug-impaired drivers. The roadside drug screening evaluations were conducted between December 18, 2016 and March 6, 2017 and included several officers from the Vancouver Police Department.

Two devices were selected for the pilot test: the Securetec DrugRead and the Alere DDS-2. Both of these devices had been previously tested for reliability with positive results. As a result, Public Safety Canada determined both the devices were reliable and set about using them on the road.

Positive readings were more likely to occur when the device was operated in temperatures colder than what the manufacturer suggests.



But “reliable” is not a word that you could attach to these devices based on this evaluation.

Um, oh boy, the problems they encountered… But you wouldn’t know it from reading their press release which quotes Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale saying “this technology works,” and that it would give police more tools to detect drug-impaired driving.

How the drug-impairment screening devices work
Both the devices have two main components: swabs intended to be placed in the mouth of the person being tested, and a machine that the swabs plug into for drug analysis. Both devices are advertised as being capable of detecting cannabis, opiates, cocaine, amphetamine, methamphetamines and benzodiazepines.

For the Securetec DrugRead, the operator’s manual suggests an officer must first split the swab into two pieces, the sample collector and a “test cassette.” The person being tested should then “run their tongue around the inside of their mouth in a circular motion three times” before the sample-collecting “DrugWipe” swab is wiped on the tongue or the inside of the cheek. When enough saliva has been collected, the swab changes colour. The swab is then reconnected with the “test cassette,” and the whole thing is placed into the screening device. The officer then presses down on the test cassette until a capsule breaks. The DrugRead screening device can then measure for the presence of drugs, a process that can take as long as eight minutes. Results will show up on the screening device’s built-in display.

The Alere DDS-2 follows a similar procedure. The officer first removes a test cartridge from its packaging and inserts the cartridge into the DDS-2 screening device. The device then confirms whether cartridge is valid, and if so, the officer can then collect a saliva sample. The collection swab is then taken out of its own packaging, and must be actively swabbed “around the gums, tongue and inside the cheek” of a subject until it changes colour. The swab is then placed into the screening device, through the attached cartridge, and analysis begins. Results are available in about five minutes, and will show up on the device’s built-in display.

Many issues identified when testing the drug impairment screening devices
Accompanying the press release on Tuesday was the report prepared by the Policy and Development Serious and Organized Crime Strategies Division. This report identified some serious issues with both the Securetec and Alere devices. Officers raised concerns that both devices require police to spend nearly 10 minutes collecting samples and obtaining results. The results themselves also suggested that positive readings were more likely to occur when the device was operated in temperatures colder than what the manufacturer suggests. This happened a lot.

The Securetec DrugRead machines themselves are suggested to operate between 5° C to 40° C, while the sample collector and test cassette cartridges it uses are suggested to operate between 5° C to 25° C. The Alere DDS-2 machines have better tolerances, and were able to go down to -20° C and up to 45° C. The cartridges that go with the Alere device, however, were much worse, with the manufacturer suggesting they operate between 15° C and 25° C. Along with Public Safety Canada’s test results, this suggests both devices may have difficulty producing accurate readings during colder times of the year in much of Canada.

The devices are also supposed to indicate a “temperature malfunction” when they’re used outside the suggested operating temperature. Though officers used the devices outside the temperature range 731 times, the devices only reported temperature malfunctions 14 times.

Public Safety Canada had this to say in its report:

“Proportionally, tests conducted outside of suggested operating temperatures were more likely to produce drug-positive results (i.e., while 64% of all tests occurred outside of suggested operating temperatures, 80% of all positive results were produced outside the suggested range). At present, it is unknown whether this finding is attributable to technical or procedural issues, for example whether the devices are more likely to show positive results when tested in extreme cold temperatures.”

The drug impairment screening devices have a 7% malfunction rate
Seven times out of 100, the tests just won’t work. Officers listed the reasons as due to temperature, power or battery, weather, or unknown reasons. Sometimes, the devices just powered off during analysis (much like roadside breathalyzers). Three of the devices, two Alere and one Securetec, only produced positive drug readings. The report does not say how many devices were tested in total from the two manufacturers.

Both manufacturers also suggest the devices must be kept still during analysis. Officers reported that 6% of the malfunctions were due to the device being tilted during the lengthy analysis time.

Other issues that may be a cause of concern
Officers who used the machines were concerned that both machines took a while to collect samples, analyze and produce results. Particularly for the Alere DDS-2, the act of swabbing a driver’s mouth could take up to two minutes to ensure enough saliva is collected. Imagine an officer standing there, with a swab in your mouth for two minutes just so the screening device will work. It was such a hassle that officers preferred to have the drivers being tested hold the swab themselves, which potentially raises issues of whether the officer had full control of the device during the whole screening process. In another sticky point of concern, the Alere mouth swabs can leak a “buffer fluid” when being used in someone’s mouth. The manufacturer “has since stated that this fluid creates no health concerns and will be assessed.” OMG!

The Securetec DrugRead is not without issues, either. Officers didn’t like how they needed both hands to use the Securetec device. They also didn’t like the eight minutes it took for an analysis to be made while in close proximity with the person tested, suggesting that this could “put officers in a vulnerable position.”

Previous research tested the reliability of these devices
As proof of reliability, Public Safety Canada relied on an assessment published in the Canadian Society of Forensic Research Journal published in December. In the assessment, researchers compared results from three models of drug screening devices to results of oral samples sent to the lab. While three models were tested, two of them ended up being the ones used in the Public Safety Canada pilot test: the Securetec DrugWipe 6S (which connects to the DrugRead) and Alere DDS-2.

The testing confirmed that the screening devices were quite accurate when it came to measuring for the presence of cannabis, cocaine, opiates, and to a lesser extent, methamphetamines. But the screening devices struggled to consistently detect the presence of amphetamines and benzodiazepines.

To reference, here are the results for sensitivity (hit rates, or ability to confirm drug use):

Opiates – 90%

THC – 87%

Cocaine – 85%

Methamphetamines – 81%

Amphetamine – 77%

Benzodiazepines – 59%

And the results for “false” positives:

Opiates – 6.9%

THC – 4.5%

Cocaine – 0.7%

Methamphetamines – 3.5%

Amphetamine – 3.6%

Benzodiazepines – 2.4%

Does this mean an officer can ask me for a saliva sample?
So far there is no section of the Criminal Code that authorized these types of test for screening purposed. The closest relevant section of the Criminal Code is section 254(3.1). This section states that an officer who has reasonable grounds to believe someone is impaired by drugs or alcohol, and had recent control of a vehicle, can require an evaluation to determine whether there was in fact impairment. This is after the “screening phase” of an investigation, at which point the officer claims to have “probable cause,” as they say in the USA.

The idea here is that to elevate their evidence to reasonable and probable grounds the police will soon be able to rely on the results of roadside drug screening. Currently there are no “approved” roadside drug screening devices. As for devices being considered, the Securetec and Alere devices only indicate a recent presence of drugs in a person’s system, and do not measure a person’s actual level of impairment.

There is likely still some time before Immediate Roadside Prohibitions for drug impairment are introduced. For drugs like marijuana, Governments have not established the level of THC required to be in a person’s body to consider them impaired and this may be impossible in any event. Even high concentrations of THC in a person’s system may not necessarily mean they’re impaired, especially if the person is a heavy, regular user of marijuana. We still have not seen research that can establish a link between levels of THC inside someone’s body and the likelihood of them causing a collision. Until then, the results from any device that claims to measure a driver’s impairment by marijuana are questionable, at best.

The many problems of roadside drug screening was last modified: June 11th, 2017 by Paul Doroshe

I heard this on the radio on my way to work this morning, the government should fuck off! Trailer Park Boy Ricki was right, the government shouldn't legalize weed because they will just fuck it up

Why hasn't this test already been in use for all the other drugs people use? I guess I don't get what the fuss is all about all of a sudden.

cannadan said:

why testing passengers?....are they breaking any driving laws?

Click to expand...

If you're a passenger just refuse, simple. You aren't under arrest for anything so there's NO need to comply. The fact that they even asked is a clear violation of Section 8 and 11, and possibly 13 of the Charter of rights and freedoms.

Rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected, namely:

Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
Section 10: right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus.
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Section 12: right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Section 13: rights against self-incrimination
Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.

CalyxCrusher said:

If you're a passenger just refuse, simple. You aren't under arrest for anything so there's NO need to comply. The fact that they even asked is a clear violation of Section 8 and 11, and possibly 13 of the Charter of rights and freedoms.

Rights of people in dealing with the justice system and law enforcement are protected, namely:

Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
Section 8: freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detention or imprisonment.
Section 10: right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus.
Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Section 12: right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Section 13: rights against self-incrimination
Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure these numbers are based of those voluntary trials they were running.
No other reason to even ask a passenger.
I got asked if I wanted to participate during a ride check a few months back.
I laughed and said no thank you good luck.
Never going to happen imho
Cop said oh it's happening with his smug face.

of course he did....its driven into their heads...the whole time they are training....that the cash cow is
that " deadly drug marijuana"....
The bottom line is they are trying to replace the revenue stream, that the police,courts,lawyer's will potentially lose.
Why else would JT stall for time...and refuse to do the right thing....and pardon all the mj and mmj users in this country...
I could have been so easy for him to save face....now instead he has become the poster boy for what we all knew would happen with the legalization of mj and mmj