State witnesses persistent drug-impaired driving; DRE program, toxicology limits complicate prosecutions

Trisha Conti, director of the Vermont Forensic Laboratory, told the Judiciary Committee on Jan. 28 that toxicology and breath-testing data show drug-impaired and polysubstance driving have become more common and harder to prosecute.

“An average alcohol concentration is a 0.14,” Conti said, noting the laboratory receives samples for impaired-driving cases and that many impaired drivers test nearly double the legal alcohol limit. Conti said the lab receives blood samples for alcohol and drug testing and that “we receive anywhere from 5 to 800 samples a year” for analysis. She described a shift in lab findings from primarily cannabis and benzodiazepines to more cases with opiates and stimulants, and said “upwards of like over 50% of the cases we see have those drugs in them” when discussing opioids and cocaine appearing in samples.

The lab director said most drug-positive cases are polysubstance: “it's unusual to have only one substance on board. What's actually more common is that folks have either two to three categories of drugs on board,” a pattern she linked to the state’s illegal-drug market.

John Flanagan, who manages Vermont’s DRE program at the Vermont Criminal Justice Council, said Vermont has 43 certified DRE officers and that the program is called out roughly 400 times a year, with a roughly 75% response rate to those calls. “The top three drug categories, as of now, are narcotic analgesics, cannabis, and central nervous system stimulants,” Flanagan said, adding that many evaluations show combinations of those categories. He described training and recertification requirements for DREs and said recruiting and retention are a continuing challenge.

Traffic safety resource prosecutor Dennis Wegmans told the committee that Vermont’s laws and court standards add prosecutorial challenges. “When we're talking about DUI in Vermont, it's to the slightest degree any mental or physical capability that's diminished in any amount by a substance,” he said, distinguishing DUI standards from the higher “intoxicated” standard. Wegmans described gaps that can arise during prosecution: toxicologists generally cannot say a blood concentration definitively caused impairment for many drugs, and Vermont case law has required expert testimony tying observed impairment to drug use in many prosecutions.

Wegmans and others described other process obstacles: delays in obtaining blood samples for hospitalized crash victims, differences across diversion programs, and limits on appellate review for misdemeanor cases. He told the committee the evidentiary rules and caseload pressures create a heavy workload for prosecutors and victim advocates; prosecutors statewide manage hundreds of active DUI cases at any given time.

Matt Russo, deputy commissioner at DNB, gave an update on the state’s ignition interlock program, which restricts driving by requiring breath-interlock devices for drivers with alcohol convictions. Russo said the Department is managing a restricted-driver program and reported 920 participants currently enrolled; he said the device is not required for a first alcohol offense but is mandatory on repeat offenses. He also told the committee there are vendor installation and monthly calibration fees, and that statute and some discount programs reduce costs for eligible low-income participants.

Mandy Shatney, manager of data and analytics at the Vermont Agency of Transportation, presented fatal-crash statistics. She said 2024 numbers were not final and that the state continues to see impaired-driving involvement in a notable share of fatal crashes. “Fifty-nine families lost loved ones,” she told the committee while describing the state’s fatal-crash reporting and the upward trend in impaired-driving involvement since 2020.

Lt. Paul Ravlin of the Vermont State Police said enforcement workload is significant: officers must investigate traffic contacts that may lead to DRE calls, breath tests, blood draws and, in serious cases, hospital coordination and search-warrant work. Ravlin said statewide reporting showed roughly 1,550 arrests under the DUI statute in the prior year and about 420 DUI-2 (higher-level) arrests.

Why it matters: committee members heard that the combination of rising polysubstance use, limited forensic correlates between concentration and impairment for many drugs, and procedural burdens — from training and DRE staffing to evidence rules in court — is complicating the state’s ability to move some cases to conviction even as enforcement activity and toxicology testing increase. Witnesses described a system of interlocking steps — roadside observation, SFST/ARIDE training, DRE evaluation, forensic testing, and prosecution — in which constraints at any point can blunt final outcomes.

Committee members and witnesses described several potential policy options or follow-up areas without reaching a formal decision: supporting recruitment and retention for DREs; clarifying statutes or evidentiary guidance for drug-impaired cases; reviewing interlock affordability and contract practices; and identifying ways to speed toxicology turnaround for fatal or hospitalized crash victims. No formal votes or motions were taken during the hearing.

The hearing record shows repeated emphasis on three factual points: (1) laboratory and DRE data point to a persistent and growing role for stimulants and opioids in impaired-driving samples; (2) polysubstance exposures are common; and (3) legal and evidentiary limits — particularly the difficulty of correlating drug concentrations with impairment — frequently require expert testimony and make some prosecutions difficult to sustain.

Committee staff said witnesses will provide more detailed data to the committee following the meeting, including lab trend tables that the Vermont Forensic Laboratory compiled, and the Agency of Transportation will provide finalized 2024 toxicology inputs once pending results arrive.