Citation

Schoch H. Blutalkohol 1997; 34(3): 169-179.

Affiliation

Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, 80539 Munchen, Germany.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1997, International Committee on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety and Bund gegen Alkohol und Drogen im Straßenverkehr, Publisher Steintor Verlag)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Considerable loopholes when sanctioning drink drivers and an almost complete lack of sanctioning drivers under the influence of drugs call for an increased efficiency of police controls. Police have to deal with the lack of co-operation by the drivers in cases of breath alcohol tests and quick drug tests. This had lead to the police doing without blood sampling which would be necessary for legal purposes in borderline cases or they would reluctantly construct a dubious initial suspicion. In order to achieve an improved preventive police traffic supervision one could justify by law every driver having to co-operate when asked to take part in a breath alcohol test. On the contrary, the driver could be forced to see a doctor to give a blood sample. In cases of accidents caused by drivers under the influence of alcohol or drugs and in other circumstances where drug use is suspected a legal obligation to give urine or saliva samples should be imposed in order that quick drug tests may be carried out. An actual utilisation of data obtained from breath alcohol, saliva or urine samples without the driver's consent could potentially become a constitutional problem. However, using this data when considering the initial suspicion for ordering a blood sample should not be questionable.