Comment from San Diego County Sheriff's Department Regional Crime Laboratory
AnonymousSupportOther
Summary: The commenter highlights significant barriers to toxicology testing, including a lack of standardized procedures, insufficient funding for forensic labs, and a lack of integration with the criminal justice system. They argue for a standardized model similar to DNA testing, the adoption of existing National Safety Council recommendations, and the implementation of legislation to mandate consistent sample collection and testing standards.
Barriers to toxicology testing are numerous, primariliy due to the lack of standardized testing from state to state and jurisidiction to jurisdiction. Testing and thus accurate, reliable data collection on drug prevelance and the impacts to traffic safety, are completely dependent upon resources in a given state, county, locality, or municipality. This is confounded with the lack of use of the testing data that does exists by the criminal justice and adjudication process. Many public forensic labs, short on resources which include infrastructure, instrumentation and technology, efficient and effective data systems, and personnel, limit testing by articulating that the ajudication process doesn't utilize or recognize this information. The sentencing and treatment of many traffic safety related case defendants receive no further treatment or sentencing enhancments for poly-substance use. Further, the lack of consistent formula grants for forensic toxicology inhibits enhancing technology, testing efficiencies, and increasing testing scope. A model in forensics for standardized testing and regulation, as well as expected annual funding, exits in DNA testing. A similar model should be considered for forensic toxicolgy testing. It should be further noted that the forensic toxicology community has had published recommendations for how traffic safety cases should be testied,in both antemortem and postmortem cases, for 15 years with the National Safety Council Recommendations. Embracing these standards and obligating that all traffic safety related cases regardless of blood alcohol concentration determination are tested for the recommended tier testing is crucial to establish meaningful data collection that will provide accurate risk asssessment and prevalence. Finally, legislation across states needs to exist that obligates minimum sample collection and testing standards to input data into FARS as well as elimination of inappropriate state mandated sample types such as urine for under the influence cases and testing only to limited statute, prohibiting labs from testing for other impairing substances than those outlined by a particular state. Incentitives and, or obligations to receiving federal and state traffic safety funds should be considered to improve compliance with standardization.