Share Email 136 Shares

Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bruce Pandya, who is a member of the Vermont Coalition for Ethnic and Social Equity In Schools, as well as a member of the AOE Ethnic and Social Equity Studies Standards Advisory Working Group. He lives in East Montpelier.



A recent commentary argues in favor of roadside saliva testing for motorists, asserting that it would not violate civil liberties while being an effective method of preventing road deaths by THC impairment. In fact, it grossly violates the constitutional rights of Vermonters. As well as this, the proposal would be ineffective in detecting intoxication in drivers.



On the issue of civil liberties, the author writes that this concern does not hold merit. As evidence for this, he presents the fact that consent to a breathalyzer is an implicit condition for obtaining a driver’s license. He argues that marijuana should be treated no differently.



Get all of VTDigger's daily news. You'll never miss a story with our daily headlines in your inbox.

But these are different tests, and they carry different implications for privacy. To dismiss the constitutional issues because they are both intoxicants makes little sense. Our state has already established that DNA collection falls under our constitutional provisions addressing search and seizure.



In a 2014 ruling, the Vermont Supreme Court overturned the state’s law allowing for DNA collection of any person accused of a felony, before they are convicted.



The majority ruled that this law violated Article 11 of the Constitution of Vermont, which protects the right of citizens to be free of unwarranted searches and seizures.



It seems clear that this proposal is plainly unconstitutional, given this precedent. The ACLU of Vermont agrees, arguing that unwarranted saliva testing is unconstitutional because it is “more invasive than a breathalyzer test because our saliva carries our DNA.”



Now, what about the question of efficacy? The test can detect THC. But that is insufficient when we are talking about impaired driving.



Alcohol leaves a person’s system within hours. By contrast, THC can stick around for days or even weeks.



VTDigger is underwritten by:

In a state where marijuana is legal for recreational use, the fact that someone has THC in their system does not provide evidence of a crime or of impairment.



There is a solution which respects the constitutional rights of Vermonters and provides an effective method of detecting impairment. A standard field sobriety test will detect impairment, rather than just the presence of THC in the body. Studies show that it is effective to determine impaired driving. This makes it more effective than a saliva test, which cannot tell us anything about impairment.



At a time of unprecedented threat to civil liberties nationwide, Vermont must reject proposals like these.

There is no justification for implementing such an ineffective and unconstitutional program in our state.

