Saliva Swab May Determine If Drivers Are Drug Impaired

salt lake city tribune ^ | 6.7.03 | Tasha Williams

[freepatriot32]

"Shy-bladder syndrome" won't spare impaired motorists from taking drug tests, if a Utah police sergeant has his way. Sgt. Dennis Simonson of the Logan Police Department requested a $5,800 grant from the Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to launch the first pilot study in the country using roadside saliva detection devices. The new tool, RapiScan, which is manufactured by Cozart, detects drugs in a driver's system using a saliva swab. Saliva is an immediate sample of what is circulating in a person's bloodstream, said Michael Beaubien, Cozart vice president for North American operations. "The purpose is to allow people to understand that we have a new tool," Simonson said. "If you're going to smoke [drugs], stay home. Stay off the highway." If the one-year pilot project is approved, officers will start using the swabs July 1 to detect the presence of cocaine, methamphetamines, marijuana and opiates in drivers suspected of using drugs, Simonson said. The ACLU doesn't follow each technological advance, said Dani Eyer, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah, but the organization supports tools by law enforcement where use is based on individual suspicion, provided the tools are technologically sound and are properly handled. The device will screen for drugs the way Breathalyzers are used now to screen for alcohol. If a driver fails the roadside saliva test, he or she will undergo a blood test, which is admissible in court, said Paul Boyden, director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors. Obtaining saliva is "more dignified" than collecting urine, which also is used for drug testing, Beaubien said. Because a female officer can collect a sample from a male and vice versa, the device eliminates uncomfortable situations and the shy-bladder problem (the inability to urinate while being watched). Simonson hopes that those who fail the test eventually will have to pay the $15 cost on the one-time use devices. Currently, the swab test is used only in juvenile probation and parole testing in New Mexico and California, Beaubien said. Utah is the only state to show significant interest in the pilot program, he said. RapiScan is used in the United Kingdom and in parts of Europe, but just received FDA approval in November.

[Lexington Green]

All your fluids are belong to us.

[agitator]

What they're not telling you is that this is an ideal method of collecting DNA samples for your dossier.

[coloradan]

Hey! You are licensed by the government to drive on public roads, and you are bound by their terms if you wish to retain that permission. Now, if you would please move your seat a bit forward to make room for the brainwave monitor, tape recorder, eye movement sensor, speed measurement device, and inside driver-safety cam and outside traffic safety cam, they would be much obliged. And please do not forget to have your anal probe installed, and remember to hook it up to its machine each time you start your car. Remember, cops won't pull you over for a disconnected anal probe sensor, but if they pull you over for something else, they can cite you for an unbuckled sensor.

Thank you and drive safely.

[Wolfie]

I'll take a saliva test over a urine test anyday. The saliva test can only detect marijuana use up to 6 hours, 24 for other drugs. Beats them looking into my past up to 30 days. Assuming they'll only use this in situtations where they could have forced you to pee in a cup anyway, its a net win. Of course, once they figure this out, they'll stop using it and go back to the pee standard.

[buffyt]

For sure, all your fluids are belong to us!

Some commons foods and medications show up as illegal drugs in drug tests. GOOD LUCK!

Don't eat poppy seeds, don't take cold pills, they will nail your assss.

[steve50]

I'll take a saliva test over a urine test anyday.

The lack of a test for impairment has been one of the claims used against legalization for years. One more reason to continue the war on pot falls by the wayside. Six hours seems a little long if it's testing for impairment, might need some fine tuning to comply with alcohol standards.

[MrLeRoy]

Wod_list ping

[Focault's Pendulum]

What they're not telling you is that this is an ideal method of collecting DNA samples for your dossier.

Dammit ag!!! Don't give them any ideas.

What am I saying?

[jmc813]

WOD Ping

[Pearls Before Swine]

I'll take a saliva test over a urine test anyday. The lack of a test for impairment has been one of the claims used against legalization for years. One more reason to continue the war on pot falls by the wayside. Six hours seems a little long if it's testing for impairment, might need some fine tuning to comply with alcohol standards.

I guess by this reasoning, the pee test is the "gold standard" of impairment tests?

[MosesKnows]

detects drugs in a driver's system using a saliva swab

Why is this and other detection system not a violation of a citzens fifth amendment right to not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?

[MrLeRoy]

LOL!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Don't forget the Anal probe which is activated upon sitting in the driver's seat. It will also read your temperature.

[JTN]

Why is this and other detection system not a violation of a citzens fifth amendment right to not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself?

Because the drug war is immune from the Constitution.

[weegee]

Put there by the IRS no doubt.

[coloradan]

You sign away your right to medical privacy when applying for a driver's license, even when it comes to alcohol use: "implied consent" to be subject to a breathalyzer. You don't want to? Fine, don't get a driver's license. (At least, that's the government's take on the situation. And, it's why my premonitions in post #4 don't have any argument against them, unless something big changes in the way the government views its licensing powers.)

[MosesKnows]

Because the drug war is immune from the Constitution.

That was a curious assertion. Would you share with me what caused you to make such an assertion? Just give me a hint if that is all you have time for. I don't mind looking it up if you would just point me in the correct direction.

[MosesKnows]

Yes, I know that. Knowing that is what prompted my question. Why are some of what you listed not a violation of the 5th amendment right that you not be required to bear witness against yourself?

[JTN]

I was only describing the way the drug war is handled by the government. They don't let little things like the Bill of Rights stand in their way.