Impaired Driving Solutions: Detection, Technology & Training

Most law enforcement officers are trained to identify alcohol-impaired drivers, but many do not receive specialized training to identify the signs and symptoms of drug or multiple substance impairment.

Every law enforcement officer should be trained in SFST and should have refresher training on a regular basis. DWI Detection and Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Resources

ARIDE training is the bridge between SFST and Drug Recognition Evaluation (DRE) training. The greater the number of ARIDE-trained officers, the more likely that drug and polysubstance-impaired drivers will be identified and DREs will be called upon to perform drug evaluations. Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement Participant Manual.

A complete investigation for drug-impaired driving requires an evaluation by a drug recognition expert (DRE). The nation needs more drug recognition experts, especially in rural areas and smaller police and sheriff’s departments. This training requires 2 weeks of in-class instruction followed by a full week of field certification. DREs must be recertified every two years. Drug Evaluation and Classification Program, Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement Resources

Drug-impaired driving cases require a blood draw for evidential purposes and the delay in obtaining the blood sample is a substantial challenge. Impairment from drug use can last for hours, but the body metabolizes drugs quickly and chemical evidence dissipates rapidly.

 Electronic Search Warrants help officers quickly obtain a search warrant for blood to accurately determine BAC or toxicology results and streamline the arrest process. Other benefits of e-warrants include reduced workloads, fewer errors, stronger DUI cases, speedier case resolutions, fewer burdens on the system, reduced refusal rates, and public deterrence. Minnesota’s e-Charging platform reduced error rates from 30% to nearly zero and practitioners report increased ease in obtaining warrants. With an e-warrant system, submissions can be prepared in under 10 minutes and the review, approval, and return process can be completed in 15-20 minutes. Implementation recommendations and examples of robust systems can be found in our Guide to Implementing Electronic Warrants. Both the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) have joint resolutions in support of the use of e-warrant systems.

Practices for Implementing Expedited Search Warrant Programs for Obtaining Evidence from Impaired Drivers

One way to speed the process of blood collection is to train law enforcement officers as phlebotomists so they are fully trained to draw blood. Law enforcement phlebotomy saves time and money and alleviates the challenge of performing blood draws in hospitals.  When suspects refuse BAC tests or when drug use is suspected, a certified medical professional must perform a blood draw. However, emergency department delays are common, and some medical facilities have policies limiting cooperation with law enforcement which can make it difficult to obtain the sample in a timely fashion. To address these issues and others (e.g., chain of custody, testimony, etc.), law enforcement agencies establish phlebotomy programs and certify officers to perform blood draws. Advantages of these programs are highlighted in the NHTSA Law Enforcement Phlebotomy Toolkit include: decreased time from traffic stop to blood sample collection; reduced costs ($40-100/draw); fewer case dismissals; reduced officer overtime pay; improved law enforcement testimony; potential for blood collection at the scene of vehicular homicide/vehicular assault cases prior to being transported to the hospital; and shorter processing times. Law enforcement phlebotomy began in 1995 when the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) established this program to address concerns about high-BAC refusal rates. After the phlebotomy program was active, statewide refusal rates fell from 20% in 1995 to 6% in 2009. Today, more than 22 states have such phlebotomy programs in place.

Responsibility.org “No Refusal Programs” Policy Position

Hospitals, HIPAA, and Impaired Driving Cases – a Guide for Law Enforcement & Prosecutors

Proof of a defendant’s positive alcohol and/or drug test is important for establishing guilt, but DUI blood samples may take months to process which can result in dismissed cases. Many states struggle with a backlog in forensic laboratories that can be in upwards of nine months. Another common concern is a lack of toxicologists available to provide courtroom testimony in complicated DUID cases. Labs need adequate staffing to address these issues. Also, new and advanced testing instrumentation is costly and requires new protocols, procedures, and training. States that wish to allocate highway safety or other grant funding to address any of these issues should be highly encouraged and allowed to do so.

Accurate testing will advance understanding of the drug-impaired driving (DUID) problem. Labs should establish/adopt minimum guidelines for toxicological investigations in traffic crashes and drug-impaired driving cases (i.e., drug panels, cut-off levels, and testing procedures) outlined in the Recommendations for toxicological investigation of drug-impaired driving and motor vehicle fatalities—2025 update. Lab uniformity is not required but a survey revealed 52% of labs questioned were in partial compliance and motivated to achieve full compliance with NSC recommendations (Logan et al., 2017). State agencies that increase consistency in testing practices will be better positioned to adopt national guidelines if/when these are established.

Ignition interlocks are the most effective countermeasure to stop drunk driving. These devices are in use in all 50 states and D.C. and are mandatory for use among all DUI offenders in 34 states and D.C. However, only about 25 percent of DUI offenders who are required to install ignition interlocks on their vehicles actually do so because DUI offenders are often not supervised after sentencing. There are a variety of strategies that states can use to increase ignition interlock implementation such as compliance-based removal, eliminating the ability to wait out a license suspension without interlock installation and allowing restoration of driving privileges if an offender installs an interlock. Click here for more information.

Responsibility.org Mandatory Ignition Interlock Devices for All Convicted DUI Offenders – Policy Position

Oral Fluid Field Screening (OFFS) tests are reliable, fast, non-invasive, and able to detect recent (within 24 hours) drug use. These devices can be used at the roadside to identify the presence and category of drugs among impaired drivers.They have a short detection window which captures recent as opposed to historical drug use.

Their use requires reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a driver is impaired, typically following a standardized field sobriety test and other investigative procedures. The roadside screen is used along with other evidence to establish probable cause for arrest.

Roadside screening tests have been used statewide in Alabama, Indiana, Michigan and Utah. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has approved the use of Federal funds in multiple states to implement oral fluid programs.  Their use has grown exponentially in the past two years, with over 25 states now conducting testing to some degree. 

Oral fluid can also be used as an evidential toxicology sample, depending on state statutes.  In contrast, evidential oral fluid tests are analyzed in a toxicology lab similar to blood testing.  The samples can be easily collected by law enforcement, they are gender neutral, and do not require medical personnel; they can be collected much earlier in the investigative process than blood.  Alabama, New York, and Ohio have evidential oral fluid programs, and Louisiana is running pilot programs. 

Expanded testing will strengthen DUI investigations and provide vital information to make appropriate sentencing, supervision, and treatment decisions. If drug use is not identified, the majority of these individuals are unlikely to be subject to drug testing or treatment interventions while under supervision which means that behavior change is unlikely and the potential for recidivism remains high.

The NASID Oral Fluid Working Group has created a host of resources that states can utilize when looking to implement a roadside oral fluid testing program.
Oral Fluid Working Group

The National Sheriffs’ Association has passed an oral fluid resolution and the International Association of Chiefs of Police is also considering an oral fluid resolution in 2026.

Responsibility.org Oral Fluid Screening for Impaired Drivers – Policy Position

Ocular Data Systems and Evidence Recorders allow law enforcement officers to manually test the eye movements and responses of a subject while directly observing and capturing responses in a ‘live’ video. The subject’s captured responses can be stored and played back as evidence of impairment or for instructor critique in training.

Continuous Alcohol Monitoring provides 24/7 transdermal alcohol testing for repeat impaired drivers. These systems automatically sample the offender’s perspiration every 30 minutes and encourage accountability and can increase compliance rates with court orders and community safety.

Responsibility.org Sobriety Monitoring – Policy Position

Responsibility.org Continuous Alcohol Monitoring – Policy Position

Continuous Alcohol Monitoring was developed by the University of Albany Institute for Traffic Safety Management and Research (ITSMR) to allow law enforcement officers to enter observations and assessments of impaired driving suspects into computer tablets. This electronic process allows data sorting, trend tracking, and informed enforcement efforts.

The DRE tablet app captures all the data required for a Drug Influence Evaluation, and more. The system includes an electronic version of a face sheet, validates data, generates PDF evaluation documents, and uploads all data, including drawings, to a state database. Since the evaluations contain sensitive personal information, data is fully encrypted, and security precautions are in place on both the tablet and the server.

Data collected from the application allows law enforcement agencies to plan their patrols around specific time frames and days of the week when multiple substance and drug-impaired driving violations are most prevalent.

Click here for more information.

Online Prosecutor Trainings are necessary to help ensure effective prosecution of DUI cases. Many prosecutors who work on DUI cases are fresh out of law school, yet impaired driving cases are the most complex cases to prosecute. Education is needed to provide an in-depth understanding of how to prosecute impaired driving. The National District Attorneys Association has developed two-online training courses – Prosecuting DUI Cases and Investigating and Prosecution of Drug-Impaired Driving Cases. These two courses are free and qualify for CLE training. Learn more here.

Wet lab and green lab training are a great way for law enforcement, judges, and prosecutors to learn the signs of alcohol and cannabis impairment. In a controlled environment, volunteers are dosed with various amounts of alcohol or cannabis while attendees learn about the science of alcohol and cannabis impairment. Then attendees are given a chance to observe the volunteers undergo a series of impairment tests and document the results. Responsibility.org and the National District Attorneys Association have published a Cannabis Impairment Detection Workshop Guide with step-by-step instructions on how to host a green lab.

Judicial training is a critical component of efforts to reduce multiple-substance impaired driving. Every judge should strive to impose sentences that identify substance use and mental health disorders, ensure appropriate treatment when indicated, and include supervision requirements designed to rehabilitate offenders and reduce recidivism.

Resources:

All Rise Impaired Driving Solutions

Alcohol Responsibility Resources for Judges

Most impaired drivers serve their sentence in the community under the supervision of probation officers. Community supervision aims both to protect public safety and to encourage behavior change. To be effective, community supervision officials should rely on the use of validated assessments, proven methods and interagency partnerships.

Of the more than 4.5 million individuals subject to community supervision orders, at least 15% have one impaired driving conviction on their record, and approximately 8% are repeat DUI offenders.

DUI offenders are a challenging population to supervise, and they tend to be inconsistently supervised due to varying procedures across jurisdictions.

When monitoring, accountability, and treatment occur together, community supervision agencies can facilitate long-term behavior change.

Resources:

CARS Training Center

Critical DUI System Reform: Supervision

APPA Impaired Driving Assessment