City police say they won’t use roadside tests for marijuana
The Vancouver Police Department is among Canadian police forces that are hesitating to use a federally approved roadside marijuana test, raising questions about the Liberal government’s decision to give the devices the green light.
The VPD said it won’t use the Drager DrugTest 5000 when pot is legalized next month because it says the device doesn’t work in sub-zero temperatures, is bulky and takes too long to produce a sample.
“We’re just not comfortable … with this machine and we’re looking at other options,” said Sgt. Jason Robillard.
Police in Delta said their officers won’t use the device this year but the department hasn’t made a decision about 2019, while Edmonton police and RCMP in B.C. say no decisions have been made yet.
A National RCMP spokeswoman, Sgt. Marie Damian, said the force will have a limited rollout of the device in consultation with provinces and municipalities.
Some Canadian police forces are hesitant to use a federally approved roadside test for marijuana impairment.
Standardized field sobriety tests and drug recognition experts will continue to be the primary enforcement tools, she said.
The RCMP has taken the lead in training Canadian police officers on the Drager devices and has ordered 20 units for that purpose.
The training will be available on or before Oct. 17, when marijuana will be legal, she said.
Justice Minister Jody WilsonRaybould defended the approval of the device in the Senate on Tuesday.
The Canadian Society of Forensic Science examined the machine and the public had an opportunity to give feedback, she said.
“It is not the only tool that law enforcement officers have. It’s an additional tool,” she said.
Rob Clark, managing director of Drager Canada, disputed criticisms of the device.
It operates best between temperatures of 4 C and 40 C.
But the main part of the machine — which does the analysis — remains in a police vehicle where it’s protected from the cold, he said.
It’s only the oral swab that collects the saliva sample that is exposed to extreme temperatures.
But Clark said the sample can be heated up when plugged into the machine in the car.
He said it typically takes about 30 seconds to a minute to collect a saliva sample and 41/2 minutes to get the result.
Clark said the devices are merely a screening tool, like a roadside breathalyzer for alcohol, and the result does not provide the evidence to convict a driver.
A blood test would be relied on in court, he said.
Kyla Lee, a criminal lawyer in Vancouver, said she intends to file a constitutional challenge of the devices as soon as police use one on a driver who wants to challenge it.
She said she bought a Drager DrugTest 5000 and tried it on herself. It took 21/2 minutes to collect a saliva sample and eight to 10 minutes to get a result, she said.
Canadians have a legal right to a lawyer immediately upon arrest or detention.
But during roadside testing that right is suspended as long as the testing is done immediately, she said.
“There have been tons of cases at all levels of court that have found delays of even five minutes in doing roadside sobriety testing to be offensive to charter standards,” she said.
Einat Velichover, business development manager for Drager Canada, said it’s not possible for Lee to have the Canadian version of the test because only 20 of the devices have been produced, for the RCMP.
She said a different version of the test takes longer to produce results because it tests for more drugs at lower volumes.
A study published this year in the Journal of Analytical Toxicology examining the use of the device in Norway said it produced “fairly large proportions of falsepositive or false-negative results compared to drug concentrations in blood.”
The study found the proportion of false positives was 14.5 per cent for cannabis. However, the authors noted the Norwegian police say the test is still a “valuable tool” and has more than doubled the number of arrests.
Drager Canada’s Clark said the study did not prove the test produces the number of false positives claimed by the authors.