* * 'fi ^ rw,+r^^. 0 U.S. Departmet of Trasportatio Natioal Highway RS Admiistratio 3 DOT HS 808 666 Jauary 1998 Techical Report Problems ad Solutios i DWI Eforcemet Systems I This documet is available to the public from the Natioal Techical Iformatio Service, Sprigfield, Virgiia 22161.
This publicatio is distributed by the U.S. Departmet of Trasportatio, Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio, i the iterest of iformatio exchage. The opiios, fidigs ad coclusios expressed i this publicatio are those of the author(s) ad ot ecessarily those of the Departmet of Trasportatio or the Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. The Uited States Govermet assumes o liability for its cotets or use thereof. If trade or maufacturer's ame or products are metioed, it is because they are cosidered essetial to the object of the publicatio ad should ot be costrued as a edorsemet. The Uited States Govermet does ot edorse products or maufacturers.
1. Report No. 2. Govermet Accessio No. 3. Recipiet's Catalog No. DOT HS 808 666 4. Title ad Subtitle 5. Report Date Problems ad Solutios i DWI Eforcemet Systems Jauary 1998 Techical Report Documetatio Page 6. Performig Orgaizatio Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performig Orgaizatio Report No. Joes, RK.; Lacey, J.H.; ad Wiliszowski, C.H. 9. Performig Orgaizatio Name ad Adddress 10. Work Uit No. (TRAtS) Mid-America Research Istitute 611 Mai Street 11. Cotract or Grat No. Wichester, MA 01890 DTNH22-95-C-05022 12. Sposorig Agecy Name ad Address 13. Type of Report ad Period Covered Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio Fial Report Office of Research ad Traffic Records September 1995-March 1997 400 7th Street, S.W., Washigto, DC 20590 it. Sposorig Agecy Code 15. Supplemetary Notes Amy Berig was the Cotractig Officer's Techical Represetative (COTR) for this project 16. Abstract This report documets the results of a study aimed at idetifyig where ad how alcohol-impaired drivers slip through the cracks i the crimial justice system. It also suggests potetial fixes to close those loopholes. The report is based o iformatio obtaied through telephoe discussios with law eforcemet officials i 11 jurisdictios; detailed case studies of BAC-law eforcemet methods ad problems i three jurisdictios; ad iput from a pael of experts experieced i BAC-law eforcemet procedures ad methods. The study idetified 28 sigificat problems i eforcig BAC-limit laws ad traced them to their most commo causes. These problems degrade the ability of the police to fid DWI suspects, cofirm suspects as DWI, ad process suspects more quickly. The problems also degrade the ability of prosecutors to charge ad obtai covictios of DWI defedats ad the ability of judges to impose appropriate sactios o persos covicted of DWI. Types of recommeded fixes for these problems icluded expaded traiig programs for police officers, prosecutors, judges, ad admiistrative hearig officers; ew or modified procedures for catchig ad processig suspected DWIs, adjudicatig DWI cases, ad sactioig DWI offeders; additioal equipmet, facilities, ad persoel for agecies ivolved i eforcig BAC laws; additioal fudig to support the operatio of these agecies; ew or modified laws o the coduct of crimial ad admiistrative adjudicative proceedigs; ad focused public iformatio programs to gai public support for the operatio of BAC law eforcemet agecies. 17. Key Words 18. Distributio Statemet DWI, DU1, drikig drivig, BAC limits, law eforcemet, adjudicatio, sactioig, system aalysis, loopholes, failure aalysis, case studies. 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 2D. Security Classif. (of 'Ns page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price. Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproductio of completed page authorized
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A system study such as this requires the cooperatio ad assistace of may persos performig the fuctios uder scrutiy. I this study we were assisted by persos who geerously gave their time to help. Some participated i exteded telephoe coversatios about how the DWI cotrol system operated i their jurisdictio. Others helped us durig visits to their jurisdictios, describig their operatios, ad the allowig us to look over their shoulders. A expert pael provided valuable advice ad worked hard before, durig ad after pael meetigs to make this product as meaigful as possible.. Three jurisdictios permitted us to coduct o-site case studies. These were Scottsdale, Arizoa; Rockdale Couty, Georgia; ad Palm Beach Couty, Florida. Amog those who assisted us i Scottsdale were Assistat City Prosecutor Susae Bartlett, Police Officer Jeffrey Belford, Hearig Officer Sheila Goode, ad Police Lieuteat Michael Keeley. Sergeat Dave Larso of the Traffic Eforcemet Uit coordiated our visit.. I Rockdale Couty, Sergeat Cliff Miller of the Georgia State Patrol was our guide. District Attorey Cheryl Custer Fisher, Georgia State Patrol Trooper Moses Little, Probatio Officer Joh Maget, Judge William Todd, ad Coyers Police Sergeat Mike Waters, amog others, geerously gave of their time durig our visit to Rockdale Couty. Our trip to Palm Beach Couty was arraged by Assistat State Attorey Richard Pealta. Helpig us there were Ted Booras, Chief of Couty Court, State Attorey's Office; Sergeat Patricia Kutlik of the Palm Beach Couty Sheriff's Office; Couty Court Judge Susa Lubitz; Circuit Court Judge Mary E. Lupo; Adrea Sheldo of Pride Ic. Probatio; ad A Vicet of the State Attorey's Office, amog may others. I each istace, the local coordiators did a outstadig job schedulig our visit ad arragig productive meetigs. To them we exted a special thaks. As idicated earlier, the Expert Pael labored tirelessly to provide the best possible iput to the project. Pael members were: Rebecca Mead, Ivestigator, Los Ageles Couty Probatio Departmet; Sergeat CliffMiller, Georgia State Patrol; C. Richard Pealta, Assistat State Attorey, Fifteeth Judicial Circuit, Florida; Sergeat Roie Roberts, Charlottesville Virgiia Police Departmet; Captai Thomas Walsh, Bureau Chief, New Hampshire Police Stadards ad Traiig Coucil; ad William W. Watt, Attorey at Law ad formertraffic court judge, Little Rock, Arkasas. To each of these dedicated professioals ad the may others who helped with this project we exted our sicere thaks. i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... i TABLE OF CONTENTS... iii FIGURES... vii TABLES... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... xi 1- INTRODUCTION... 1. BACKGROUND... 1 SCOPE AND APPROACH... 3 ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT... 4 2 - THE BASELINE SYSTEM... 5 INTRODUCTION...... 5 INFORMATION SOURCES... 6 Telephoe Cotacts with System Staff... 7 Expert Pael Discussios... 8 Staff E.xpertise... 8 RESULTS... 8 Top Level... 8 Law Eforcemet... 10 First Level... 10 Secod Level... 12 Adjudicatio... 17 First Level... 17 Secod Level - Admiistrative... 19 Secod Level - Judicial... 21 Sactioig... 23 First Level... 23 Secod Level - Admiistrative... 23 Secod Level -Judicial... 23 MEASURES OF REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE... 27 3 - CASE STUDIES OF OPERATING SYSTEMS... 37 SELECTION OF CASE STUDY SITES... 37 CASE STUDY PROCEDURES... 38
CASE STUDY RESULTS - SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA... 39 Site Descriptio... 39 System Descriptio... 39 Law Geeratio... 39 Eforcemet... 40 Adjudicatio... 42 Sactioig... 43 Problem Areas ad Possible Fixes... 43 CASE STUDY RESULTS - ROCKDALE COUNTY, GEORGIA... 45 Site Descriptio...... 45 System Descriptio...... 45 Law Geeratio... 45 Eforcemet...... 45 Adjudicatio... 47 Sactioig...... 48 Problem Areas ad Possible Fixes... 48 CASE STUDY RESULTS - PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA... 49 Site Descriptio...... 49 System Descriptio...... 49 Law Geeratio...... 49 Eforcemet... 49 Adjudicatio... 50 Sactioig... 52 Problem Areas ad Possible Fixes... 53 4 - SYSTEM FAILURES AND SUGGESTED FIXES... 55 INTRODUCTION... 55 SYSTEM FAILURES...... 55 Eforcemet... 55 Failure to Fid DWI Suspects... 55 Failure to Cofirm Suspects as DWIs... 56 Failure to Process DWIs i a Timely Maer... 57 Adjudicatio... 58 Failure to Charge DWIs... 58 Failure to Obtai a Guilty Plea from DWIs... 58 Failure to Covict DWIs... 59 Sactioig... 61 Failure to Impose Appropriate Sactios... 63 Failure to Execute Imposed Sactios... 63 Failure to Uphold Admiistrative Sactios... 64 SUGGESTED FIXES... 65 Eforcemet... 65 Failure to Fid DWI Suspects...... 65 iv
Failure to Cofirm Suspects as DWI... 71 Failure to Process DWls i a Dmely Maer... 73 Adjudicatio... 75 Failure to Charge DWIs... 75 Failure to Obtai Guilty Pleas from DWIs... 78 Failure to Covict DWIs... 81 Sactioig... 85 Failure to Impose Appropriate Sactios... 85 Failure to Execute Imposed Sactios... 89 Failure to Uphold Aamiisirative Sactios... 90 IMPLEMENTATION OF SYSTEM FIXES... 93 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS..... 94 5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS... 99 6 - REFERENCES... 103 APPENDIX - SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS... 105 v
FIGURES Figure 2-1: Top-Level Flowchart of the Baselie DWI Eforcemet System Figure 2-2: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.0, Law Eforcemet... 11 Figure 2-3: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.1, Perform Surveillace... 12 Figure 2-4: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.2, Detect Suspect... 13 Figure 2-5: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.3, Stop Vehicle... 14. Figure 2-6: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.4, Coduct Pre-Arrest Ivestigatio Figure 2-7: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.6, Coduct Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig... 16 Figure 2-8: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.0, Adjudicatio... 18 Figure 2-9: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.1, Determie Guilt - Admiistrative Figure 2-10: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.2, Process Appeal of Admiistrative Decisio... 20 Figure 2-11: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.4, Hear Motios - Judicial... 22 Figure 2-12: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.4, Coduct Trial - Judicial... 22 Figure 2-13: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.0, Sactioig... 24 Figure 2-14: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.2, Diagose ad Refer... 25 Figure 2-15: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.3, Impose Probatio... 26 Figure2-16: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.4, Determie Actio for No-Compliace 27 Figure 4-1: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Fid DWI Suspects"... 56 Figure 4-2: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Cofirm Suspects as DWIs" Figure 4-3: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Arrest ad Process DWIs I a Timely Maer"... 58 Figure 4-4: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Charge DWIs"... 59 Figure 4-5: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Obtai Guilty Plea From DWIs"... 60 Figure 4-6: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Covict DWIs"... 61 Figure 4-7: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Impose Appropriate Sac- tios"...... 62 Figure 4-8: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Execute Imposed Judicial Sactios"... 64 Figure 4-9: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Uphold Admiistrative Sactios"... 64 Figure 4-10: Causes ad Fixes of "Too Few Uits Observig for DWI".. 66
Figure 4-11: Cause ad Fix of "Iability to Recogize DWI Drivig Behavior"... 67 Figure 4-12: Causes ad Fixes of "Ieffective or Iefficiet Use of Resources"... 68 Figure 4-13: Causes ad Fixes of "Ieffective Use of Citize Reportig". 69 Figure 4-14: Cause ad Fixes of "Too Much Time Spet Collectig Data"... 71 Figure 4-15: Causes ad Fix of "Failure to Observe for Sigs of Alcohol Impairmet"... 72 Figure 4-16: Causes ad Fix of "Failure to Properly Give or Iterpret a Sobriety Test"...... 72 Figure 4-17: Causes ad Fixes of "Log Waits for Support Uits at Arrest Scee"... 73 Figure 4-18: Causes ad Fixes of "Log Time to Reach Processig Facility"... 74 Figure 4-19: Causes ad Fixes of "Use of Patrol Officers for No-Patrol Duties"... 75 Figure 4-20: Causes ad Fixes of "Too Few Prosecutors to Process DWI Caseload"...... 76 Figure 4-21: Causes ad Fixes of "Uecessary or Iefficiet Chargig Procedures"... 77 Figure 4-22: Causes ad Fixes of "Isufficiet or Iadmissable Evidece"... 78 Figure 4-23: Causes ad Fixes of "Defedats Fail to Appear"... 79 Figure 4-24: Causes ad Fixes of "Too Few Guilty Pleas at Arraigmet"... 79 Figure 4-25: Causes ad Fixes of "Failure to Negotiate a Plea"... 80 Figure 4-26: Causes ad Fixes of "Too May Motios ad Cotiuaces"... 81 Figure 4-27: Causes ad Fixes of "Critical Evidece Not Admitted"... 82 Figure 4-28: Causes ad Fixes of "No Testimoy or Poor Testimoy From a Key Witess'."... 84 Figure 4-29: Cause ad Fix of "Iappropriate Not Guilty Verdict Redered"... 1... 85 Figure 4-30: Cause ad Fix of "Lack of Iformatio"... 86 Figure 4-31: Cause ad Fix of "Lack of Sactioig Resources"... 87 Figure 4-32: Cause ad Fix of "Lack of Uiformity i Setecig"... 87 Figure 4-33: Cause ad Fix of "Isufficiet Attetio to Setecig"... 88 Figure 4-34: Causes ad Fix of "Failure to Complete Term or Fulfill Coditios of Setece"... 89 Figure 4-35: Causes ad Fix of "Police Officer" Fails to Appear or Testify Effectively........ 90
Figure 4-36: Causes ad Fixes of "No-Pertiet Issues Addressed at Hearigs"... 91 Figure 4-37: Cause ad Fix of "Hearig Officer Arrives at a Erroeous Judgemet"... 92 TABLES Table 2-1: Restrictiveess of BAC Limits i Selected States at Start of Study Table 2-2: Sactios for DWI - Baselie System... 9 Table 2-3: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Perform Surveillace, Detect Suspect, ad Apprehed Suspect... 30 Table 2-4: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Coduct Pre-Arrest Ivestigatio, ad Arrest ad Trasport Suspect... 31 Table 2-5: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Coduct Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig... 32 Table 2-6: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Determie Guilt (Admiistrative), Process Appeal of Admiistrative Decisio, ad Arraig Table 2-7: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Arraig, Hear Motios, Coduct Trial, ad File ad Coduct Appeal... 34 Table 2-8: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Setece, Diagose ad Refer, Impose Probatio, Determie Actio for No-Compliace, ad Impose Puitive Sactios... 35 ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY STUDY OBJECTIVES AND APPROACH May alcohol-impaired drivers go either udetected or upuished. This report attempts to idetify where ad how these idividuals slip through the cracks i the crimial justice system. It also suggests potetial fixes to close those loopholes. Specific objectives of the project were: to describe various ways beig used i the Uited States to eforce laws limitig a driver's blood alcohol cocetratio (BAC); to idetify sigificat problems that occur i DWI (drivig while itoxicated) eforcemet ad the impact of these problems o catchig law violators ad subjectig them to appropriate sactios; ad to suggest chages i DWI eforcemet that would prevet or ameliorate these problems. To do this, we: coducted telephoe discussios with law eforcemet officials i te jurisdictios to obtai a overview of curret DWI eforcemet methods ad problems; visited three jurisdictios ad prepared detailed case studies of their DWI eforcemet methods ad problems; ad coveed a expert pael of idividuals with extesive experiece i DWI eforcemet. The pael provided additioal iformatio ad helped i aalyzig the iformatio. RESULTS A total of 28 sigificat problems i eforcig BAC-limit laws was idetified ad traced to their most commo causes. These problems degrade the ability of the police to fid DWI suspects, cofirm suspects as DWI, ad process suspects more quickly. The problems also degrade the ability of prosecutors to charge ad obtai covictios of DWI defedats ad the ability of judges to impose appropriate sactios o persos covicted of DWL Some 50 fixes were recommeded for cosideratio by jurisdictios experiecig these problems. Types of fixes recommeded were: xi
PROBLFMSAND SOL U770NSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTFII?S expaded traiig programs for police officers, prosecutors, judges, ad admiistrative hearig officers; ew or modified procedures for catchig ad processig suspected DWIs, adjudicatig DWI cases, ad sactioig DWI offeders; additioal equipmet, facilities, ad persoel for agecies ivolved i eforcig BAC laws; additioal fimdig to support the operatio of these agecies; ew or modified laws o the coduct of crimial ad admiistrative adjudicative proceedigs; ad focused public iformatio programs to gai public support for the operatio of DWI eforcemet agecies. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We coclude that DWI eforcemet i most jurisdictios is fuctioig at a acceptable, if ot optimal, level, ad is fuctioig extremely well i some jurisdictios. Specific coclusios ad recommedatios flowig from this project are: Coclusio: The greatestimprovemetidwieforcemetimostjurisdictios will be realized by icreasig the percetage of patrol officers' time available for lookig for ad iterdictig DWI suspects. However, all ivolved agecies must be prepared to adapt to the greater demads o their resources (for example, larger case loads) resultig from such icreases. Recommedatio: Police commad staff should recosider their policies for allocatig persoel ad other resources to esure that sufficiet emphasis is beig give to DWI eforcemet. Police maagers should examie each support fuctio performed by patrol officers to see how arrest ad processig time ca be reduced. The possibility of reducig the time spet fulfillig reportig requiremets should also be cosidered. The use of shorteed forms ad computer techology is oe of the most productive ways of icreasig officer availability for patrol tasks. Aother way of icreasig patrol time is to assig support duties durig suspect processig to clerical staff or other o-swor persoel..xii Coclusio: The time required to adjudicate drivig while itoxicated (DWI) cases is excessive i may jurisdictios, ofte stretchig out for moths ad, sometimes, for years. This violates a basic teet of deterrece theory that calls for the timely impositio of puishmet for proscribed behavior.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommedatio: Judicial agecies should examie their procedures to lear where iordiate amouts of time are beig spet Particular attetio should be give to the parts of the process that ivolve pre-trial hearigs ad cotiuaces. There should be a eye toward restrictig the coditios uder which the process ca be exteded i time. Coclusio: The failure to appear (FTA) by defedats at adjudicative hearigs ca have a large egative impact o system performace by reducig their availability for determiatio of guilt ad sactioig if foud guilty. The extet of this problem atiowide is ot kow, but our research suggests that it could be widespread. Recommedatio: Jurisdictios should udertake research to lear the ature ad extet of their FTA problem. If the problem is serious, the ways of dealig with it should be devised, icludig the revocatio of the driver licese for FTA. Coclusio: A series of uexpected problems is occurrig i the operatio ofthe admiistrative adjudicatio compoets of DWI eforcemet These problems iclude excessive demads o police officers' time to appear at admiistrative hearigs; procedures that require police officers to file a writte request for cotiuace if uable to appear at a hearig; laws that prohibit a prosecutor from appearig at a hearig, placig the police officer i the role ofproseartor, hearig officers allowig o pertiet issues to be addressed at the hearig; ad hearig officers' lack of kowledge of the law, alcohol impairmet of drivig performace, techiques for determiig impairmet, or some combiatio of these. These problems are causig the process to be avoided by police officers i some jurisdictios. Thus, the iteded admiistrative sactios are avoided by violators. Recommedatio: The requiremet for police officers to appear at admiistrative hearigs, schedulig of officers at hearigs, qualificatios ofhearig officers, ad pertiet issues that may be addressed at hearigs should be examied. Coclusio: Judges eed more iformatio o offeder characteristics ad sactioig alteratives to develop effective setecig packages. Recommedatio: Judges should be provided iformatio o offeder characteristics ad sactioig alteratives for use i setecig. Setecig guidelies for violatios of laws regardig alcohol-related drivig should also be provided. Research fidigs o the effectiveess of sactios for DWI eed to be dissemiated to judges i a easy-to-use format
PROBL MSAND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCEM RT SYSTLVE Coclusio: Public support for DWI eforcemet is critical to maitaiig a acceptable level of performace. Recommedatio: Commuities should develop ad carry out public iformatio programs o the ature ad extet of the alcohol-crash problem locally, ad o resources ad legislatio eeded for eforcig BAC laws. Coclusio: The itroductio of laws limitig the BAC of various categories of drivers may otbe havig ay serious impact o DWI eforcemet. Specifically, laws settig the BAC limit at 0.08 has had little affect o the fuctioig of agecies ivolved i DWI eforcemet. I states havig so-called "zerotolerace" laws foruderage drivers, isufficiet iformatio existed durig this project to determie whether these laws are creatig difficulties or are ot achievig their iteded results. However, limited data suggest that there are problems i processig juveiles suspected of violatig zero-tolerace laws, particularly i trasportig ad holdig such suspects. Recommedatio: More research o the ature, provisios, ad impact of zero tolerace laws should be coducted. NHTSA is ow examiig zero-tolerace laws ad their applicatio for youth. This should help fill this gap. xiv
1- INTRODUCTION The geeral objective of this project was to determie where ad how differet types ofdwii eforcemet systems fail i their missio to reduce alcohol-impaired drivig ad to suggest fixes for those failures. This project was cocered with improvig the performace of govermetal agecies that eforce laws limitig the blood alcohol cocetratio (BAC) of drivers of vehicles that operate o our atio's roads ad highways. I this report we call the collectio of these agecies i a give jurisdictio, ad their procedures ad resources, a "DWI eforcemet system." Specific objectives of the project were: to describe various ways beig used i the Uited States to eforce2 laws limitig a driver's blood alcohol cocetratio (BAC); to idetify sigificat problems that occur i DWI eforcemet systems ad the impact of these problems o catchig law violators ad subjectig them to appropriate sactios; ad to suggest chages i DWI eforcemet that would prevet or ameliorate these problems. BACKGROUND We evisage the Traffic Law System (TLS) as oe of may societal systems that attempt to maage risk created by our Highway Trasportatio System (Joes ad Joscely, 1976). Traffic crash risk is the particular domai of the TLS.. I a positive sese, the TLS provides guidelies for the ormal operatios of the Highway Trasportatio System, ad i a egative sese, it prohibits actios that create traffic crash risk ad geerates forces desiged to cotrol those actios. I geeral; its objective is maitaiig crash risk at a level that is tolerable to society. For may reasos, DWI eforcemet systems ofte fail to maitai drikigdrivig risk withi tolerable limits. Such system failures are the result of a failure r I this report, the term "DWI" is used geerically to describe drivig with a illegally high blood alcohol coceatio (BAC). Other terms that we used by some jurisdictios iclude DUI (drivig uderthe ifluece) ad DWAI (drivig while ability impaired), amog others. 2 The term "elforcemat" is used i this report to idicate the fall rage of fimctios'that are performed by DWI eforcemet systems i creatig a deteretthreat for discouragig violatios of BAC laws. This demo icludes the U ditioal eforcemet fuctio dealig with the detectio ad apprehesio of law violators, as well as the subsequet fuctios of adjudicatio ad sactioig. We will use the more arrow defiitio of the term that excludes adjudicatio ad sactioig i later discussios. 1
PROBLEM SANDSOLUTIONSINDWIENFORCMEV7'SYS7FMS of the system to perform oe or more of its costituet fuctios. Usually, the failures are ot catastrophic, but merely result i reduced performace. For example, jurisdictios rarely cease to detect ad apprehed DWI violators etirely, but oly fail to detect ad apprehed eough of them. The reasos why these failures occur are of major cocer i this project. The failure to detect ad apprehed eough alcohol-impaired drivers may simply be due to too few police officers observig for cues to drivig while itoxicated (DWI). However, failures are very seldom isolated but are itercoected with other failures. For example, the lack of officers observig for'dwi may be due to a lack of commad emphasis of DWI eforcemet, which is due to a lack of public support for ecessary resources, which is due to poor public iformatio programs publicizig local alcohol-related traffic crashes ad describig alcohol-crash risk compared with the risk of violet crimes. Thus, lookig for chais of failures that defie the failure modes of a DWI eforcemet system is ecessary. It is ot eough just to look for idividual failures. The situatio is made eve more complex by the possibility of multiple failure modes behid a sigle system failure. Aother failure mode resultig i a failure to detect ad apprehed eough alcohol-impaired drivers may origiate with poorly desiged ad time-cosumig procedures for police-officer participatio i adjudicatio proceedigs. Such procedures could udermie police motivatio to detect, apprehed, ad process DWI suspects. Fially, a system may be experiecig multiple system failures, with each system failurebeigthe resultofseveral simultaeously-occurrig admutually-reiforcig failure modes. For example, besides the failure modes cotributig to the detect-ad failures described above, oe might have several other failure modes apprehed resultig i a failure to impose effective sactios to deter alcohol-impaired drivig. This project was cocered with idetifyig commo failures ad failure modes i DWI eforcemet systems ad igeeratig promisig ways of dealig with them. Problems arisig i the eforcemet of laws dealig with driver impairmetby drugs other tha alcohol were ot addressed explicitly i this project, although some of the sameproblems caoccuri eforcigboth alcohol-impairmet ad drug-impairmet laws. From the defiitio above, the DWI eforcemet system is clearly cocered with a particular type of traffic-crash risk, that which is created by alcohol-impaired drivers. At the highest level, the formal fuctios of a DWI eforcemet system are law geeratio, law eforcemet, adjudicatio, ad sactioig, defied broadly as follows: Law Geeratio Defie the target risk precisely; Prohibit behavior that creates risk (i.e., drivig with a BAC exceedig specified limits); 2
INTRODUCTION Provide forthe operatio of the DWI eforcemet system through procedural guidelies, creatig ecessary etities, ad fudig them. Law Eforcemet. Detect ad apprehed violators for further system actio; ad Maipulate huma behavior to prevet violatios. Adjudicatio Determie if risk-takig occurred for idividuals appreheded by Eforcemet; Determie the validity of risk prohibitios by Law Geeratio; ad Provide fudametal fairess essetial for system operatio. Sactioig Provide the ultimate system respose to esure that the sactioed idividual will ot egage i risk-takig i the future (specific deterrece); ad Provide a patter of resposes to idividual risk takig that iflueces all potetial risk-takers to refrai from such actios (geeral deterrece). Besides the traditioal fuctios listed above, a fifth, less formal, fuctio is cocered with the dissemiatio of iformatio amog the compoets of the system ad to potetial DWI violators, amog others? May govermetal agecies ad istitutios are ivolved i performig these fuctios. However, the DWI eforcemet system has o "system maager" (because of the America doctrie of separatio of powers), ad has o "system specificatio" for describig what the system or ay of its compoets should do. Actually, the DWI eforcemet system is a "system of systems," each operatig almost idepedetly i some jurisdictio, but loosely boud by a commo set of priciples. SCOPE AND APPROACH This project dealt with all of the fuctios of the DWI eforcemet system as defied above, but was most iterested i the eforcemet fuctio as affected by other fuctios of the system. The processes ivolved -i the Law Geeratio fuctio were ot examied i this project, but pertiet BAC laws that must be "eforced" by the other three fuctios were of cocer. I our aalyses of these processes, we also looked for system failures that might be associated with laws specifyig differet BAC limits for differet groups of drivers. 3 Note that these fuctios are top-level fuctios. Each of them ca be (ad is i our aalyses) broke dow ito lower-level fractio. 3
PROBLE BAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCER ENT SYSTEMS The project ivolved several tasks. First, we developed measures of the performace of DWI eforcemet systems. The, criteria were developed for selectig case-study sites at which the operatio of various classes of systems could be observed. Criteria for selectig the members of a expert pael were also developed at this time. We the developed a set of specificatios of a traditioal DWI eforcemet system. The specificatios were used as a framework for aalyzig the systems ad as a basis for comparig othertypes ofdwi eforcemet. Remaiig tasks ivolved the idetificatio of system failures ad suggested fixes. All of this work was supported by ideas from the pael ad by iformatio gaied i the site visits. The expert pael was absolutely crucial to the coduct of this study, providig operatioal experiece i all ofthe fuctioal areas ofthe DWI eforcemet system. The pael was ot asked to reach a cosesus o ay particular issue, but merely to provide the idividual members' opiios o those issues. It cosisted of six members selected based o subject area expertise ad kowledge, willigess ad ability to work ad participate i cooperative group discussios, ad represetatio of both atioal orgaizatios ad local practitioers. The pael helped i developig more detailed descriptios of commo types of systems. The pael also helped i determiig how ad why these systems sometimes fail to operate as they were desiged to operate, ad i developig the fixes for the failures. Two, two-day meetigs of the pael were held durig the study. Other iformatio about the operatio of DWI eforcemet systems was obtaied through a series of telephoe discussios with eforcemet ad adjudicatio staff i several states. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This report cotais five chapters ad oe appedix. I Chapter 2, a detailed descriptio of a baselie or omial DWI eforcemet system is preseted as a basis for comparig other systems examied durig the project Chapter 3 describes DWI eforcemet systems i three case-study jurisdictios. Problems beig experieced i those systems, ad some solutios beig cosidered by various system actors are also discussed i Chapter 3. Failures i performig DWI eforcemet system fuctios are described i Chapter 4, alog with brief descriptios of suggested fixes to the failures. Some cosideratios importat to carryig out the alteratives are also discussed i Chapter 4. The coclusios ad recommedatios flowig from the study are preseted i Chapter 5. The appedix summarizes the results of the telephoe discussios. 4
2 - THE BASELINE SYSTEM INTRODUCTION I this chapter, we preset a set of specificatios describig the operatio of a traditioal, o-frills DWI eforcemet system. This system was used i this project as a basis for aalyzig DWI eforcemet systems. Note that the baselie system was ot chose to represetthe most commo DWI eforcemet systems atiowide. Rather, it reflects our perceptio of the least complex ad most basic system as a stadard for comparig the wide variety of systems, that geerate ad eforce BAC laws. The specificatios defie the fuctios of this baselie system at various levels of detail. A separate flow chart has bee prepared for each level. Iterfaces with other fuctios are depicted i the chart, ad alterate paths to ad from fuctios are show. A arrative descriptio ofthe process at a give level accompaies the flow chart, showig what is doe i each fuctio. Fially, a table is provided summarizig possible measures of the performace of the system i performig its various fuctios. Types of resources eeded are also show i the table. As idicated i the prior chapter, this project is attemptig to improve the fuctioig of the process through which BAC laws are eforced. The laws themselves state maximum BACs permitted for specified driver groups. Geeral types of BAC laws of cocer i this project are: Group BAC Limit All Drivers DWI 0.08, 0.10 DUI 0.05, 0.08 Uder Age 21 0.0-0.02 Commercial 0.04 Commercial 0 (Out of Service) Recogizig the complexity of the DWI eforcemet process, we used a systems approach to help us orgaize our thikig. We did this to make sure that our aalysis cosidered all of the importat aspects of the etire process ad did ot ed up recommedig chages to oe part of the process that might adversely affectother parts ofthe process. I otherwords, we wat to improve the fuctioig ofthe etire process i its missio of reducig the traffic crash risk created by drikig drivers. To apply the systems approach to this problem, we defied a DWI eforcemet 5
PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SI3TF system that employs the processes ad resources of the larger crimial justice system. I attemptig to reduce drikig-drivig crashes, this DWI eforcemet system performs four major fuctios: BAC Law Geeratio Law Eforcemet Adjudicatio Sactioig I our aalysis framework, we call these fuctios "top-level" fuctios. For the most part, these fuctios are performed sequetially. The BAC Law Geeratio fuctio is a iput fuctio, ad its processes were ot examied here, but pertiet BAC laws that must be "eforced" by the other three fuctios were of cocer. This process, alog with a summary descriptio of the activities performed i each factio ad the resources (persoel, equipmet, ad facilities) ivolved i each fractio, comprises a top-level descriptio of a DWI eforcemet system. Clearly, this descriptio is much too broad to depict the complexity of such a system i some real jurisdictio. We eeded to, go to lower levels of detail to uderstad how such a system really works ad to suggest chages that might improve its performace. To do this, we bega breakig dow each the top-level fuctios ito smaller pieces that we call "lower-level fuctios." For example, the top-level fuctio "Law Eforcemet" i some' give jurisdictio might have "Perform Surveillace" ad "Detect Violator" as two of several lower-level fmctios. The relatioships betwee these fuctios could also be depicted i a lower-level flow chart. We call a descriptio at this level a "first level descriptio." Eve this level of detail is ot sufficiet for the purposes of this project. To decide what is really happeig, we eeded still more detail, ad to get this detail, we broke dow each of the frst level fuctios ito its costituet secod-level fuctios that were the flow-charted ad described. From this aalysis, we obtaied ot oly a descriptio of what each part of the system does ad the resources required for doig it, but also the relatioship of each part to all other parts of the system. This iformatio is essetial for assessig the performace of the whole system ad for geeratig ideas for improvig system performace. INFORMATION SOURCES Iformatio for developig the baselie system was obtaied from several sources. These sources ad the methods used i obtaiig iformatio are described below. 6
ME BASEL VE SYSTEM Telephoe Cotacts with System Staff Durig the early stages of this project, we examied BAC laws i all fifty states based o the NHTSA "Digest of State Alcohol-Highway Safety Related Legislatio" curret as of Jauary 1,1996. States were classified accordig to the restrictiveess Table 2-1: Restrictiveess of BAC Limits i Selected States at Start of Study Group State BAC Limit Presump Per Se Admi Uder Commer five Per Se 21 cial 1 - Most NC 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.04 Restrictive NM Noe 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.04 CA 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.04 2 - Restrictive AZ 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.04 FL 0.08 0.08 0.08 Noe 0.04 KS 0.08 0.08 0.08 Noe 0.04 3 - Least SC 0.10 Noe Noe Noe 0.04 Restrictive TN 0.10 Noe Noe 0.02 0.04 MS 4 - Sher IL 5A5 5A5 5.15 5.55 5.54 MA 0.08 Noe 0.08 0.02 0.04 QR 0.08 0.00 0.00 Noe 0.04 Checkpoits ot permitted of their laws as measured by various BAC limits specified i state laws. Categories used were "Most Restrictive," "Restrictive," "Least Restrictive," ad "Other." Three states i each category were idetified as possible cadidates for cotact by telephoe to obtai iformatio aboutthe operatio ofdwi eforcemet systems i their state (see Table 2-1)4. a The per se limits for Teessee ad Illiois chaged to 0.08 darig the study. 7
PROBLE!WAND SOLUTJONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS Cotacts were the made with Goveror Highway Safety Represetatives (GHSRs) ad state-level agecies i these states to ask for their assistace i idetifyig potetial sites that might be willig to discuss their systems with us. Our cotacts at the state level suggested jurisdictios withi their respective states ad ofte provided the ames of eforcemet staff ad other officials for Mid-America staff to cotact. Based o this iformatio, officers from law eforcemet agecies i four states (Califoria, Florida, Kasas, ad Illiois) were asked about BAC eforcemet practices. A police officer from Hattiesburg, Mississippi was also cotacted. Law eforcemet persoel who were cotacted provided extesive detailed iformatio o BAC eforcemetpracticesadprocedureswithitheirjurisdictios. Ati-DWI eforcemet topics covered icluded surveillace ad detectio techiques ad cues, apprehesio policies ad practices, field ivestigatio, arrest procedures adtrasportigoftheviolators, post arrest ivestigatio ad processig, ad prosecutio support. Prosecutig attoreys from state attorey offices i three states (Kasas, Florida, ad Illiois) were also asked about BAC adjudicatio practices. Topics of discussios icluded the chargig process, araigmet, trial, appeal, sactios ad touched o the admiistrative process. For the most part, the persos cotacted were cooperative ad cadid i discussig the DWI eforcemet system i their area. A summary of the iformatio they provided is cotaied i the appedix. Expert Pael Discussios We asked our expert pael members to commet o a draft of a typical baselie system that we preseted to them. The pael met twice durig the project, i the first meetig to discuss the baselie system, ad i the secod, to idetify system failures ad to recommed potetial fixes to the failues. The results of the first meetig were used to modify the draft descriptio, the fial form of which is preseted below. Staff Expertise We also drew upo the experiece ofmid-america staffwith DWI eforcemet systems. Mid-America has bee ivolved i the aalysis of such systems atiowide sice the early 1970s. Durig that ivolvemet we have visited ad held discussios withstafffrom some 200 operatioal DWI eforcemet systems i the Uited States. RESULTS Top Level 8 The four top-level fuctios of the baselie DWI eforcemet system are:
THEBASELINESmmM BAC Law Geeratio Law Eforcemet Adjudicatio Sactioig The overall flow of case processig at the top level is the same as that show i the precedig sectio, which beig: Figure 2-1: Top-Level Flowchart of the Baselie DWI Eforcemet System BAC Law Law Adjudicatio Sactioig LGeetb0 Eforcemet 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Agai, we ote that the BAC Law Geeratio fuctio is a iput fuctio, specifyig the various BAC limits. The baselie system has a BAC. of 0.10 as a presumptive limits. The Federal limit of 0.04 for drivers of commercial vehicles also exists. No lower limit exists for mior-age drivers i the baselie system. Puitive sactios specified by the laws are summarized i Table 2-2. Table 2-2: Sactios for DWI - Baselie System Covictio Crimial Admiistrative Fie Jail Licese Suspesio or Revocatio DWI, First $200-1500 Noe 6-9 moths DWI, Secod $50041000 2 days-1 year 1-2 years DWI, Third+ $1000-32000 120 days-4 years 2-5 years Refusal, First - - 1 year Refusal, Secod - - 2 years Refusal, Third - - 5 years LawEforcemet is performed by state ad local agecies. It is cocered maily with detectig ad apprehedig DWI violators, observig the suspect to decide s This BAC limit applies oly to the baselie system. As idicated i Table 2-1, states vary i their BAC limits, with several havig per se limits of 0.08. 9
PROBLM&AND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SY;STENZS whether to arrest, ad processig of the suspect durig ad after arrest. A importat secodary elemet of eforcemet is providig a deterret threat to potetial risk takers simply through the presece of police or police symbols. Eforcemet also supports operatio ofthe etire DWI eforcemet system by providig iformatio such as arrest records ad accidet reports - o the ature of risk. Adjudicatio is most commoly associated with the courts where the rules of crimial procedure are followed to fid out whether idividuals accused of violatig BAC laws are guilty. Before coductig the proceedig i which guilt or o guilt is determied (the "trial" whe coducted by the judiciary), the accused offeder is iformed of the charge ad his or her rights ad may participate i oe or more pretrial hearigs. Adjudicatio is also doe by admiistrative agecies such as driverlicesig authorities. These proceedigs are called "hearigs" i which fidigs of fact are made by a hearig officer. O a less formal plae, adjudicatio ca also be doe by o adjudicative agecies of the DWI eforcemet system. For example, a police officer may decide ot to arrest a driver with a BAC very close to the legal limit, but to let aother, sober, drive the vehicle. Similarly, a prosecutor may decide ot to charge a arrested driver with druk drivig i retur for the driver's promise to eter a alcohol treatmet program. Fially, a driver may self-adjudicate by pleadig guilty to the offese before a judicial trial or admiistrative hearig. Sactioig provides the ultimate deterret threat of the DWI eforcemet system. It ca be doe by the judiciary (for example, imposig a fie or a jail setece), by a admiistrative agecy (for example, by suspedig a driver's licese), or by a police officer (for example, by issuig a warig for some related offese such as speedig). Other, o puitive ``sactios ca also be imposed through such mechaisms as probatio i which aoffeder agrees to participate i a alcohol treatmet program i exchage for a reductio i a puitive sactio. Law Eforcemet First Level. Costituet fuctios are show i Figure 2-2. The first fuctio, Perform Surveillace, is cocered with lookig for violators, icludig selectig times ad places for surveillace ad the deployig police uits at those times ad places. It also icludes actios take ad methods used by officers i obtaiig iformatio for idetifyig DWI drivers i the traffic flow or after a crash has occurred. Such iformatio is cocered with drivig behaviors or other characteristics associated with a DWI violatio. I the ext fuctio, Detect Violators,.this iformatio is used to idetify a idividual as a likely DWI i a specific istace, through either detectig druk drivig behavior, detectig other traffic law violatios, or detectig other associated factors discovered durig ivestigatig a traffic crash. The ext fuctio, Cotact Violator, ivolves measures take by police officers that will result i a face-to-face cotact with a possible violator who was detected i the prior fuctio. The objective of this fuctio is to apprehed suspected DWIs. 10
* * THE BASELINE3ThT. M It is cocered with actios take ad methods used by officers i makig the iitial cotact with a suspected DWI idetified durig the surveillace ad detectio fuctios. I o-the-road detectio, this fuctio icludes pursuit of the DWI ad cotiues util the DWI has bee pulled out of the traffic flow ad both the patrol vehicle ad the DWI suspect's vehicle have stopped. Figure 2-2: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.0, Law Eforcemet Coduct Pt6E Adi 3.0 Law Ge,00912l H H Parbri DetoctVioletor Corrmct Vakdor Surve o OR CoductPre- Arrest 21 2.3 2.4 2.5 a1op OR Coduct Pot- Aew ad Arrest Trasport OR Irrvestlgstlo -I * * Viamor rdweab 3.0 2.7 2.6 * I Coduct Pre Arrest Ivestigatio, actios are the take to decide (to the satisfactio of the field officer) whether the possible violator is a DWI law violator * or a o violator, ad to decide what actio (for example, a arrest) should be take agaist a appreheded DWI suspect. For drivers appreheded by observig traffic, it icludes all activity from the time the police officer approaches the suspected DWI's vehicle util the eforcemet actio is determied. For drivers ivolved i a crash, it icludes all activity from the time the officer approaches a suspected driver util the eforcemet actio is take. Ifthe determiatio is "o-dwi violator, " the sequece of fuctios is eded for that subject. If the determiatio of the field ivestigatio is "violator," ad a decisio is made to arrest the subject, the ext fuctio, Arrest ad Trasport Violator, is performed, resultig i the removal of the subject to facilities for further actio. If the driver were ijured ad icapacitated i a crash, Arrest ad Trasport Violator is delayed as appropriate. The "further actio" will be take i the ext fuctio, Coduct Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig, i which additioal evidece of the violatio is sought 11
PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYST1MS from the arrested suspect, ad various procedures regardig record keepig ad dispositio of the suspect are ivoked. All these fuctios are coducted agaist a backgroud of public iformatio ad educatio (Coduct PI&E). Various mechaisms for publicizig the eforcemet threat, ragig from hard ews coverage to full-fledged public iformatio campaigs are icluded. Secod Level. The fist fimctio, Perform Surveillace, is broke dow ito the lower-level fuctios (Figure 2-3): Deploy Uits, Observe Traffic, Observe Crash Scee, ad Receive Citize Complaits. Figure 2-3: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.1, Perform Surveillace Observe Traffic 2.12 Geerate Laws Deploy Uits Observe Crash Scee LO 2.1.1 2.1.3 L22 Receive Citize Complaits 2.1.3 Detect Violators Deploy Uits is cocered with the assigmet ad placemet of uits to locatios where they ca look for DWIs. A strategy of "uiform" patrol is used i the baselie system. I this strategy, uiform coverage is maitaied over a give geographical area. Marked vehicles are used durig patrol (automobiles usually), with some support by motorcycles durig warm weather. Oe-officer uits are the rule, with two-officer patrols i high-crime areas. Uits are used both i a statioary ad movig mode. Two types of surveillace are performed: observatio of movig vehicles o the road (the Observe Traffic fuctio) ad observatio of coditios ad behaviors at crash scees to which a uit has bee dispatched or has observed durig patrol (the Observe Crash Scee fuctio). I the former fuctio, gross sigs of drivig 12
* * * THE Ida Et.INE SYS7ZW behavior idicative of DWI are looked for, for example, drivig at a speed much higher ormuch lower tha the posted limit; weavig ad erratic drivig; movig ear or over the road ceter lie; overshootig a stop; improper mergig ito traffic; ad overcompesatig to the left or right whe passig aother vehicle. I the latter fuctio, a rapid assessmet is made of the demeaor ad commetary of persos at the scee (icludig the driver(s)); the eviromet; ad the ivolved vehicles ad their cotets. I Receive Citize Complaits, DWI icidets reported by citizes are received by police commuicatios ceter staff. The ext fuctio, Detect Suspect, ivolves the officer(s) from the patrol vehicle processig the iformatio obtaied i the Surveillace fuctio to decide whether a violatio has bee detected. Three lower-level fuctios are ivolved (Figure 2-4): Assemble Iformatio; Make Stop Decisio; ad Dispatch Officer. Figure 2-4: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.2, Detect Suspect 4 Perform Assemble Make Stop Cotact Surveil- Iformatio Decisio Violator lace 2.1 22.1 22.2 2.3 Dispatch Officer 2.2.3 The first two fuctios follow observatios made by the officer, ad the third follows receptio of a citize complait. I the Assemble Iformatio fuctio, iformatio about a iitial classificatio as a suspect is assembled. I Make Stop Decisio, the surveillace officer decides whether the driver is a suspect ad should be cofroted for further classificatio. The emphasis is o idetifyig "margial" drivers to get "good" DWI arrests that are likely to result i a covictio. I the Dispatch Officer fuctio, a officer is set to the locatio idetified i the citize complait, ad a affirmative decisio to stop is implicit The ext fuctio, Stop Vehicle, cotais the followig three lower-level fuctios (Figure 2-5): 13
PROBLF1l2SAND SOLUTTONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SY3TF 12S Observe for DWI Behavior, Egage Suspect; ad Stop Suspect. Figure 2-5: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.3, Stop Vehicle Coduct Pro- Detect Observe for Egage Stop Art Suspect DWI Behavio Suspect Suspect Ivestigatio L2 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.4 First, the officer Observes for DWI Behavior, lookig for such cues as overuse or exaggerated use of arm sigals ad attempts to dispose of beverage cotaiers. If available, audiotape equipmet is used by the officer to record his or her commets o the suspect's drivig behavior. I Egage Suspect, the off icer follows the suspect with the itet of stoppig the vehicle. Techiques for gettig the driver's attetio iclude the use of flashers, hor, ad sire (as a last resort). The officer looks for DWI cues as uusually fast compliace to sigal to stop, slowess i stoppig, ad seemig igorace of officer's sigal to stop. Stop Suspect ivolves: stoppig the suspect driver as soo as possible after probable cause has bee ascertaied; choosig a safe stoppig poit; callig i the vehicle's registratio umber at the time of the stop, ad ot allowig the suspect to operate his or her vehicle i ay maer after the stop uless it is determied that he or she is ot impaired. The lower-level fuctios of the Coduct Pre-Arrest lvestigatio fuctio are (Figure 2-6): Cotact Suspect; Determie Alcohol Impairmet; ad Determie Eforcemet Actio. Figure 2-6: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.4, Coduct Pre-Arrest Ivestigatio Detemie Determie Arrest ad Stop Cated Alcohol Eforcemet Tresport Vehicle Suspect Impairmet o Suspect 2.3 24.1 2.42 2.4.3 2.5 -I 14
THEBASELINESYSTFM I Cotact Suspect, the officer approaches the stopped driver from the driver side ad stads to the rear of the suspect's left frot door. I two-perso patrol uits, the approach is made from both sides of the suspect's vehicle. The officer observes the occupats' actios to esure, amog other thigs, that the driver ca be idetified. Determie Alcohollmpairmet follows. This is accomplished by observig the suspect's demeaor, walk, speech, odors of alcoholic beverage, ad maual dexterity ("totality of the circumstaces"). The last sub-fuctio is Determie Eforcemet Actio ad ivolves decidig which immediate actios should be take by the police from the pre arrest ivestigatio. Alteratives are: Arrest the suspect for DWI; If it is uclear if the suspect is impaired ad should be arrested, have the suspect lock his or her car ad leave it at the scee, or have some other perso who is ot impaired (such as a taxi driver or passeger) drive the suspects vehicle (with suspect) home; Arrest or cite the suspect for aother violatio; ad Release the suspect. The DWI eforcemet process cotiues oly for the first alterative. No lower-level fuctios existforthe A rrestad Trasport Suspect sub-fuctio. The suspect is arrested, placed i the patrol car, ad take by the arrestig officer to the desigated statio or substatio for further processig. The Mirada warig is read immediately after the arrest ad breath test if there is custodial questioig. CoductPost Arrestlvestigatio adprocessig, ivolves traditioal i-statio breath testig, had preparatio of documets, ad release pedig prosecutio Subfuctios are (Figure 2-7): Process Vehicle Trasport Druk Passegers Give Rights Regardig Chemical Tests Give Chemical Test or Notify DMV of Test Refusal Questio Suspect (Mirada applies) Complete Paperwork Book Suspect ito. Jail (Jail Persoel) or Release Suspect to Resposible Adult Set Bod ad Release Suspect The flow of the processig is depicted i the chart below. 15
* * * PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONS INDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS Figure 2-7: Flowchart for Fuctio 2.6, Coduct Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig Process Vehicle Arrest ad 2.6.1 Give Trasport Chemical Te Give Suspect Trasport Passegers 2.6.2 OR 'Rights hemical Te 2.6.3 2.6.4 Book Suspect Complete Paperwork 2.6.6 Set Bod ad 2.6.8 Release Questio Give Mirada Suspect OR Suspect Warig 2.6.10 Certify 2.6.7 2.6.5 Resposible Adult _2.6.9 Adjudicatio * 3.0 I Process Vehicle, the vehicle of the arrested DWI is released to a resposible perso if available ad if the suspect cosets. Otherwise, the vehicle is secured ad left at a safe place at the site of the arrest. Alterative ways to Trasport Impaired Passegers iclude callig a taxi, havig a sober passeger to take them home, ad callig a additioal officer to take them home or to a detoxificatio facility. At the statio, the first step i the post arrest processig of the suspect is to advise him or her of their rights with respect to a chemical test for BAC'(Give Chemical * * Test Rights). If the suspect the refuses the test, the chemical test is bypassed. I Give Chemical Test, a evidetiary breath test is admiistered accordig to specified stadards by a certified breath test operator 'other tha the arrestig officer. Commercially available equipmet is used. 16
THEBASFLINES'YS7FM Questio Suspect occurs immediately after the chemical testig. The Mirada Warigis give priorto this custodial questioig. Typical questios asked iclude how muchthe suspecthadto drik, where he or shewas comig from whe arrested, ad other circumstaces of the drikig-drivig evet ad arrest. Durig ad after the questioig, the arrestig officer completes the paperwork associated with the arrest (Complete Paperwork). Much of the paperwork will have bee started before this poit, startig immediately after the arrest. The types of paperwork iclude: arrest report; citatio or summos; alcohol ifluece report; bookig forms; advice of chemical test rights form icludig refusal (if ay); forms for otifyig the DMV of admiistrative law violatios, icludig the implied coset law (chemical test refusal); ad chemical test forms. After completio of the questioig, a decisio is made whether to book the suspect ito jail or to release the suspect immediately. A major factor i this decisio is whether the suspect is ow sober. If sober, the suspect will be released followig the ext fuctio (Set Bod ad Release Suspect). If ot sober, the suspect will be released to a resposible adult who will certify that he or she will be resposible for the suspect (CertifyResposible Adult). If such a resposible adult caot be foud, the suspect will be booked ito jail to "sober up." The suspect will remai i jail util arraigmet oly if he or she has outstadig warrats or is uable to post a bod. The bookig process (Book Suspect) cosists of the admiistrative procedures ecessary to process the DWI ito jail. It icludes figerpritig, photographig, fillig out paperwork, ad takig care of the prisoer's persoal effects. The bookig is performed by a officer at the police statio. Adjudicatio. First Level. Adjudicatio ivolves two separate processes, a admiistrative process ad a judicial process, that go o i parallel (See Figure 2-8 above). I the admiistrative process, the State driver licesig agecy adjudicates ay violatio of the implied coset law. I Determie Guilt or Iocece, the driver will be foud guilty of a violatio if he or she refused the chemical test. 17
* * * * * * * PROBLFAISAND SOLU7TONS INDWI FNFOROEAE:NT SYSTEMS Figure 2-8: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.0, Adjudicatio 6 *?a as 18
* * THE RAt'F'T.rTESYSrEW Sufficiet evidece for a fidig of guilty is the paperwork prepared by the appropriate law eforcemet perso durig the post arrest processig (fuctio 2.6.6 above). The driver may appeal a fidig of guilty by requestig a admiistrative hearig after which the agecy will Rule o Appeal of Admiistrative Decisio. Further levels of appeal are also available through the judicial process. The judicial brach of the adjudicatio process follows stadard procedures for hadlig crimial cases. (I the baselie system, oe or two DWI covictios withi five years are treated as a misdemeaor with a maximum jail setece of oe year, ad three or more DWI covictios withi five years are treated as a feloy with a * priso setece of up to five years.) The process starts with the Arraig fuctio i which the accused DWI appears before a judge or magistrate, has the charge explaied, ad is asked to plead guilty or ot guilty. A plea of ot guilty will lead * to Hear Motios where pre-trial hearigs are coducted, motios are filed with the court o various aspects of the case, ad plea bargais may be egotiated. A plea of guilty will lead directly to the sactioig fuctio. A failure to egotiate a plea will. lead to Coduct Trial. It is also possible that the charge may be dismissed at this poit before or durig the trial due to some irregularity or other circumstace, i which case the process will ed. The trial will have three possible outcomes, a verdict of guilt, a verdict of ot guilty, a hug jury, or a mistrial. A guilty verdict leads to sactioig or, if a appeal occurs, Rule o Appeal ofjudicial Decisio. A ot-guilty verdict eds the process, ad a hug jury or a mistrial could result i either a retrial or a dismissal (ot show). SecodLevel -Admiistrative. The first fuctio, Determie Guilt, ivolves two lower-level fuctios as follows (Figure 2-9): Validate Paperwork Notify Driver Figure 2-9: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.1, Determie Guilt - Admiistrative Q Law Validate Notify Driver Fervet Paperwork 2.0 3.1.1 3.1.2 Sactioig 4.0 Process Appeal 19
* * PROBLEMSANDSOLU77ONSINDWIENFOROEAMN7'SYS7M S Determiatio of guilt is routie for the breath-test refusal violatio, depedig oly o the validity ad completeess of the paperwork prepared durig the eforcemet fuctio. The paperwork is miimal, cosistig of a form cotaiig a writte certificatio from the arrestig officer that a test was refused. Driver idetificatio data ad the date ad locatios of the refusal or test are provided. The driver is otified by letter of the results of the admiistrative fidig. If a determiatio of guilty is made, the driver may either accept the determiatio ad the sactio that follow or ask for a hearig. If a hearig is requested, the licese is revoked pedig the outcome of the appeal process. Applicable lower-level fuctios for Process Appeal ofadmiistrative Decisio are (Figure 2-10): Request Hearig Coduct Hearig File ad Coduct Judicial Appeal Figure 2-10: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.2, Process Appeal of Admiistrative * Decisio Sactios File ad Co- NoM' Driver Request Coduct duct Judicial OR Hearig Hearig Appeal -a 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 0 A hearig may be requested withi some specified period of time after the driver has bee otified of the admiistrative determiatio of guilt (Request Heavig). It is to the driver's advatage to request a hearig soo, sice the admiistrative sactio will follow immediately after the determiatio of guilt. However, the driver may request a temporary licese for the etire period of the admiistrative review process. The admiistrative agecy must coduct a requested hearig withi 15 days after receivig the request for oe (Coduct Hearig). A admiistrative hearig officer will coduct the hearig, ad the arrestig officer must be preset The drivermay ask a district courtto review the admiistrative decisio (File ad Coduct Judicial Review), ad the court may stay the admiistrative decisio oly if a substatial questio is preseted to the court. 20
THE BASELIlVESYS72M Secod Level - Judicial. The first fuctio, Arraig, has o lower-level fuctios. Arraigmets are coducted i the court of jurisdictio. The court is required to iform the defedat of the ame of the offese charged; the maximum setece permitted by law; the miimum madatory setece; his or her right to the assistace of a lawyer ad a trial by jury; ad if idiget, his or her right to a appoited lawyer. The defedat is the asked how he or she pleads. Before acceptig a plea of guilty or o cotest, the court must advise the defedat that if the plea is accepted, there will be o trial. Also, the court must determie that the plea is volutary ad that there is support for the charged druk-drivig offese. The ext fuctio, Hear Motios, has three lower level fuctios (Figure 2-11). First, the court SchedulesPre-Trial Hearigs of motios dealig with various aspects of the case ad durig which pleas may be egotiated. Most issues ivolved will be cocered with the evidetiary aspects of the case as related to: Risk idetificatio - Is the accused violator the actual violator? Fudametal fairess -Does the adjudicative process protect the rights of the accused violator? Specific issues could be: probable cause for the traffic stop ad arrest; Mirada warigs; ad refusal to take a chemical test, amog others. For example, a motio may ask, because there was o probable cause to stop the car, that all evidece obtaied from the stop be suppressed because the stop ad arrest were illegal ad violated the defedat's basic rights. The judge rules o the motio, usually after hearig argumets from both sides. I the ext fuctio, Coduct Trial, stadard procedures for coductig crimial trials are followed. The seve sub-fuctios are sequetial as idicated i the flow chart below (Figure 2-12). A docket showig the date ad time of the trial is prepared by the court clerk after the arraigmet. A jury is selected i the usual way ad istructed by the court i various legal termiologies ad i its coduct durig the trial. (Other istructios may follow durig the trial, for example,. istructios o the admissibility of the defedat's refusal to submit to a BAC test as evidece.) Both sides may make opeig statemets, afterwhich theprosecutio presets its case, callig its witesses that will iclude the arrestig officer, ad possibly, the BAC-test operator. The defese cousel the presets its respose to the charge, callig its'witesses that may iclude the defedat if the defedat so wats. Cross examiatios may occur after each witess's testimoy. 21
* * PROBLF. SAND SOLU77ONSINDWIENFORC AMWSYSTLLIS Figure 2-11: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.4, Hear Motios - Judicial PTA Pro- Set Thai rawn*ret rial Heed gs Homfirw Date Trial 3.4.1 3A2 3.4.3 3.5 r CO Figure 2-12: Flowchart for Fuctio 3.4, Coduct Trial - Judicial set Ta/ Date 3 4.3 Call ad Peparo Select ad Give Opeig Examie Docket Istruct Jury Staterrierft Witesses 3.5.1 3.5.2 3.5.3 3.5.4 Give Closig Sed Case to Read Verdict Sactioig Statemerds Jury 3.5.5 3.5.6 3.5.7 4.0 L FRe ad Coduct Appeal 3.6 After closig argumets by both sides, the judge istructs the jury agai o the * critical aspects of the case, ad releases the jury for its deliberatios ad its verdict. * The jury's verdict is the read, after which the defedat is released (a ot-guilty * verdict), or, if guilty, proceeds to the sactioig fuctio or files a appeal. If the jury caot reach a verdict, the prosecutor may choose to retry the case. 22
T BASMAESYSTFM No lower-level fuctios exist for File ad Goduct Appeal. Stadard procedures are followed i filig ad coductig the appeal. Sactioig First Level. As with the adjudicatio fuctio, sactioig ivolves separate admiistrative ad judicial processes (Figure 2-13). I the admiistrative process, the State driver licesig agecy imposes the required driver licese sactios (see law geeratio fuctio above). All other sactios are imposed i the judicial process. I the judicial process, the first fuctio is to prepare a setecig package that may iclude a offer of probatio that will require the violator to eroll i a alcohol treatmet or educatio program. I exchage for acceptig probatio ad agreeig to complete the program successfully ad follow other coditios specified by the court, the violator is offered a reductio i the traditioal sactios permitted by law (for example, jail time or amout of fie). If probatio is ot accepted (or offered), the more severe traditioal puitive sactios are imposed. If probatio is accepted, probatio staff diagoses the extet of ay drikig problem uderlyig the offese, ad refers the violator to a appropriate alcohol treatmet or educatio program (Diagose ad Refer). Durig probatio, the offeder is supervised by a probatio officerwho attempts to esure that the coditios of probatio are followed (Impose Probatio). Failure to comply with the coditios of probatio will result i a hearig to Determie Actio for No-Compliace. Possible outcomes of the hearig are: retur to the setecig fuctio for re-setecig; retur to probatio to complete the treatmet program as ordered; or immediate revocatio of probatio. I the fial fuctio the judge will Impose Puitive Sactios. The severity of the sactios (icludig suspesio of all puitive sactios) depeds primarily o the umber ofpriordwi offeses, ad o the fial outcome of pre-trial egotiatios. Secod Level - Admiistrative. No lower-level fuctios exist for this fuctio. A descriptio of the sactios imposed are placed i the violator's driver record maitaied by the admiistrative agecy. If a appeal of a implied coset determiatio favors the defedat, the the licese (which has bee revoked pedig the outcome of the hearig) is automatically reistated. SecodLevel -Judicial. No lower-level fuctios exist for the Setece fuctio. The judge selects a setecig "package" that will be offered to the offeder. The setecig package says which puitive sactios are to be imposed ad sets forth the coditios of probatio. The cosequeces of the offeder ot acceptig ad/or complyig with the probatioary coditios (i.e., more severe puitive sactios) are explaied to the offeder. The offeder decides whether to accept the coditios of probatio, ad the judge the specifies the setece. 23
* * * * PROBLF 4SAND SOLUffONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSIZ^A& Figure 2-13: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.0, Sactioig I L 24
TIjjE RA ELH E_ SMEW The Diagose ad Refer fuctio cotais three lower-level fuctios. They are (Figure 2-14): Coduct Ivestigatio; Refer Offeder, ad Prepare Ivestigatio Report. Figure 2-14: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.2, Diagose ad Refer Prepare Setece Coduct Refer Ivestigatio Impose ivestigatio Offeder Report Probatio 4.1 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.3 This fuctio is performed by a probatio officer from the court's probatio departmet. First, a ivestigatio.is coducted (Coduct Ivestigatio) durig which the probatio officer checks the state's crimial justice iformatio system ad the state's driver records system to obtai iformatio o prior covictios. Oe or more iterviews are coducted durig which a alcohol assessmet istrumet (the Mortimer-Filkis protocol) is admiistered. After the iterviews are completed, a referral is made to a alcohol treatmet or educatioal program (Refer Offeder). Referral is made based o iformatio gathered durig the ivestigatio, for example, whether the violator was classified as a problem driker, ad whether the violator has participated i other treatmet programs. The probatio officer the prepares a brief report describig the results ofthe ivestigatio, adoutlii therecommededtreatmet(prepareivestigatio Report). The Impose Probatio fuctioicludes twolowerlevelfuctios(figure2-15): Perform Treatmet ad Moitor ad Supervise Offeder. As idicated i the diagram, both sub-fuctios are performed essetially i parallel. Note that, at this stage of the process, the offeder has already erolled i a treatmet program followig a assessmet to determie treatmet eeds. I Perform Treatmet oe of the two programs offered will be admiistered to the offeder, a program for offeders who are classified as ot havig a drikig problem ad a program for offeders who are classified as havig a drikig problem. Both levels are coducted o a outpatiet basis. 25
PROBLFAISANDSOLUTIONSINDWIENFORCFNOUSYS7 MS Figure 2-15: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.3, Impose Probatio C Setece Perform Treatmet =ermie 4.3.1 Actio for Not:ompli. Moitor ad Supervise Offeder Impose Puitve Sactios 4.3.2 4.5 QD Moitorig cdsupervisio requires the offeder to report periodically to his or her probatio officer who will have iformatio o the offeder's attedace i the treatmet program ad o the offeder's geeral progress i the program. Iformatio from crimial justice data systems ad from driver records data systems will also be available to the probatio officer. Oce the probatio period is completed ad the coditios have bee satisfactorily met, probatio is eded, ad the court completes the file o the offeder. At this ;poit, the defedat is o loger subject to the traditioal sactios for which the probatio was substituted, but still must receive ay reduced sactios (icludig time i jail or i priso if a feloy) specified i the setecig package. The ext fuctio, DetermieActioforNo-Compliace, is performed whethe offeder does ot follow the coditios of probatio agreed to at setecig. Lowerlevel fuctios are (Figure 2-16): Notify Court of Probatio Violatio, Notify Parties of Probatio Violatio Hearig; ad Coduct Probatio Violatio Hearig. The first actio is to Notify Court ofprobatio Violatio. The, the judge begis violatio-of-probatio proceedigs agaist the offeder, ad Notify Parties of Probatio Violatio Hearig. I Coduct Probatio VIOA26o Hewig the offeder may be represeted by cousel. 26
* TfIE R.4 SPLINE SYSTEM Figure2-16: Flowchart for Fuctio 4.4, DetermieAc io for No-Compliace Notify Court Notify Parties impose of Probatio of Prob. Viol. Coduct ProbJ Probatio Violatio Hearig Viol. Hearig 4.3 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 C2 Setece Impose Puitve Sactios 4.5 If the violatio is upheld, the judge may stop the probatio ad impose the traditioal sactios ormay reistate ad/or extedthe probatio up to the maximum limit allowed by statute. (Most ofte, the judge will show a good deal of leiecy i allowig probatio periods to be reistated.) If the judge does ot uphold the violatio (a rarity), probatio is reistated. The offeder may appeal a fidig cofirmig the violatio. The last sactioig fuctio is Impose Puitive Sactios. No lower level fuctios exist for this fuctio. Sactios are a mixture of a fie, driver licese suspesio, ad icarceratio i jail or priso. The severity of the sactios depeds primarily upo the umber of prior DWI offeses, ad o whether the offeder accepted ad successfully completed probatio. If the offeder has less tha three priors i a period of five years precedig the arrest for this offese, this offese will be cosidered a misdemeaor, with amaximumjail term of oe year. Otherwise the offese will be cosidered a feloy. The offeder is also required to pay the cost of the treatmet program. MEASURES OF REQUIREMENTS AND PERFORMANCE This sectio presets lists of measures of (1) how well the various fuctios of thebac law eforcemet system are performed (performace measures) ad (2) the resources required for performig those fuctios (requiremets measures). The measures are orgaized as above by fuctio, ad are cotaied is three tables, startig with eforcemet fuctios (Table 2-3, Table 2-4, ad Table 2-5) ad proceedig successively through the adjudicative ad sactioig fuctios (Table * 2-6, Table 2-7, ad Table 2-8). 27
PROBLEt4SAND SOLUTIONSINDWIFNFORCT 4ENTSYSTEMS Some fuctios have more tha oe performace measure, for example, time to do the fuctio for a give case, ad percet of cases processed with give results. Requiremets measures are stated as to: persoel requiremets (for example, four hours per case for a patrol officer); equipmet requiremets (for example, a BAC measuremet device); ad facility requiremets (for example, floor space for coductig BAC tests). Quatifyig such detailed measures usig objective data will be all but impossible i most real world jurisdictios. This is because such detailed data are ot routiely kept, ad costructig ew data systems to provide the data would be prohibitively expesive ad time-cosumig. The mai value of such measures is to provide a list of items that ca be assessed subjectively by system maagers (for example, police chiefs, prosecutig attoreys, presidig judges, ad court admiistrators). This will allow them to lear whether improvemets are eeded i various parts of their system ad to estimate the resources eeded to improve performace. Both omial (e.g., high, average, ad low) ad ordial (e.g., 1, 2, ad 3) scales could be used i such a assessmet. More aggregated measures could be quatified i most systems. For example, the performace ofthetop-level adjudicatio fuctio could be broke dow ito the followig compoets: Chargig 3 Charge 3 No Charge Arraigmet 3 Plea 3 No Plea 3 Fail to Appear 3 Dismissed Pre-Trial 3 Plea 3 No Plea 3 Fail to Appear 3 Dismissed Trial 3 Guilty 3 Not Guilty 3 Fail to Appear 3 Dismissed 28
THEBASELA'SYS72 M The, the percetage of defedats movig from a give state (say, "o plea" durig pre-trial) to various other permissible states (say, "guilty" after trial) could be determied ad combied to provide a estimate of the probability of covictio give a arrest. This coditioal probability would serve as a performace measure for the adjudicatio subsystem as a whole. Similarly, measures of overall law eforcemet performace ad overall sactioig performace could be estimated ad combied with adjudicatio system performace to give a quatitative measure of the performace of the total system. Examiatio of such a model reveals that system performace will ot be a liear fuctio of the subsystem performace parameters. The effect of a give percetage chage i oe of the subsystem performace parameters o overall system performace will deped o the baselie value of that parameter. For example, a system i which 50% of the defedats set for trial do ot appear will realize a greater percetage icrease i system performace by reducig failure to appear (FTA) by 50% (to a rate of 25%) tha will a system i which 20% of the defedats fail to appear. Cosequetly, oe caot give geeral rules o which subsystem chages will be the most productive. The productivity of such chages will deped o the startig poit, which demads that each jurisdictio should carefully examie the performace of its curret system ad its subsystems before udertakig largescale chages. 29
PROBLEMAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFOROEMGN'SYSTEMS Table 2-3: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Perform Surveillace, Detect Suspect, ad Apprehed Suspect Fuctio Requiremets Measures Performace Measures Persoel Equipmet Facilities Perform Surveillace Deploy Uits Patrol uits deployed Headquarters Computer ad Headquarper licesed driver per staff hours per record system ter buildig uit time, appropriate uit deployed ess of deploymet (plaig ad briefig) Observe Traffic Time spet observig Patrol officer Patrol car Noe 'for DWI per patrol hours per uit uit, percet eeded Iformatio recorded per uit Observe Crash Time from crash to Dispatcher hours Patrol car Headquar Scee arrival at scee per per crash, patrol ter buildig evet time spet ob officer hours per servig per patrol uit, crash percet eeded Iformatio recorded per uit Detect Suspect Assemble ifor Percet of eeded ifo Patrol officer Patrol car Noe matro recorded per officer hours per uit per evet / crash time / crash Make Decisio Use of proper rules, Patrol officer Patrol, car Noe to Stop stop decisios per offs hours per uit car per uit time time / crash Cotact suspect Pursue Suspect Time i pursuit per Patrol officer Patrol car Noe evet, percet hot pur hours per evet suits Observe for Cues sought Patrol officer Patrol car Noe DWI Behavior hours per evet Stop Suspect Percet caught per Patrol officer Patrol car Noe evet hours per evet 30
THEBASELIIVESYSTFM Table 2-4: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Coduct Pre-Arrest Ivestigatio, ad Arrest ad Trasport Suspect Fuctio Requiremets Measures Performace Measures Persoel Equipmet Facilities Coduct Pre-Arrest Ivesbgado Approach Suspects escaped, Patrol officer Patrol car Noe Vehicle / officers ijured, elaps hours per evet Suspect ed time per evet Scree for Elapsed time per Patrol officer Patrol car Noe Alcohol evet; percet correct hours per evet Impairmet decisios; percet positives Determie Elapsed time per Patrol officer Patrol car Noe Alcohol evet; percet correct hours per evet Impairmet decisios; percet positives Determie Percet correct Patrol officer Patrol car Noe Eforcemet decisios per uit, el hours per evet Actio apsed time to maim decisio per evet Arrest ad Trasport Elapsed time to Patrol officer Patrol car Noe Suspect trasport per evet hours per arrest 31
PROBLE7iSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI E VFORCF T SPSTFAZS Table 2-5: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Coduct Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig Fuctio Requiremets Measures Performace Measures Persoel Equipmet Facilities Coduct Post Arr. Ivest ad Process. Process Vehicle Elapsed time per evet Patrol officer Patrol car Noe hours per evet Trasport Druk Elapsed time per evet Patrol officer, or Patrol car(s) Noe Passegers additioal officer Give Rights o Elapsed time per Patrol officer Patrol car Headquarters Chem. Tests evet, percet give hours per evet buildig correctly Give Chemical Elapsed time per Chem test ' Breath test Headquarters Test evet, percet give operator hours equipmet buildig correctly, percet per evet; Patrol refusals officer hours per evet Questio Elapsed time per Patrol officer Patrol car Headquarters Suspect evet, percet ifo hours per evet buildig items covered Prepare Elapsed time per Patrol officer, Patrol car Headquarters Paperwork evet, percet eeded. hours per evet buildig ifo provided per evet Book Suspect Elapsed time per Patrol officer Patrol car Headquarters ito Jail evet, percet booked hours per evet buildig correctly Set Bod ad Elapsed time per Patrol officer Patrol car Headquarters Release evet, percet booked hours per evet buildig correctly 32
27fEEBASEL17VESYSTFM Table 2-6: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Determie Guilt ( Admiistrative), Process Appeal of Admiistrative Decisio, ad Arraig Fuctio Requiremets Measures Performace Measures Persoel Equipmet Facilities Determie Guilt (Adrrtiistrative) Validate Elapsed time per case, Clerical hours Computer DMV office Paperwork percet cases with per case system, office space valid paperwork. equipmet Notify Driver Elapsed time per case, Clerical hours Computer DMV office percet cases driver per case system, office space otified. equipmet Process Appeal of Admiistrative Decisio Request Hear- Elapsed time to Clerical hours Computer DMV office ig process request, per case system, office space percet drivers re- equipmet questig hearigs. Coduct Hear- Elapsed time before Hearig Officer Computer DMV office ig hearig, elapsed time hours per case system, office space for hearig, percet equipmet decisios upheld. File ad Elapsed time before Clerical hours Computer Courtroom, Coduct appeal hearig, per case system, office court staff Judicial Appeal percet admi. equipmet office space decisios upheld. 33
PROBLEAEAND SOLV77ONSINDWI ENFORCE d^nt SPSTFMS Table 2-7: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Arraig, Hear Motios, Coduct Trial, ad File ad Coduct Appeal Fuctio Requiremets Measures Performace Measuers Persoel Equipmet Facilities Arraig Elapsed time from Judge, bailiff, Computer Courtroom, arrest to arraigmet, attorey, clerical system, office court staff percet guilty pleas. hours per case equipmet office space Hear Motios Elapsed time for Judge, bailiff,:' Computer Courtroom, motios, percet cases attorey, clerical system, office court staff dismissed hours per case equipmet office space, jury room Coduct Thal Prepare Docket Elapsed time for dodo- Clerical hours Computer Courtroom, et preparatio. per case system, office court staff equipmet office space Select ad Elapsed time for jury Judge, bailiff Computer Courtroom, Istruct Jury selectio. attorey, clerical system, office court staff hours per case equipmet office space, jury room Give Opeig Elapsed time for Judge, bailiff, Computer Courtroom, Statemets statemets. attorey, clerical system, office court staff hours per case equipmet office space, jury room Cap ad Examie Witesses Elapsed time for examiatios. Judge, bailiff, attorey, clerical hours per case Computer system, office equipmet Courtroom, court staff office space, jury room Give Closig Elapsed time for Judge, bailiff, Computer Courtroom, Statemets statemets. attorey, clerical system, office court staff hours per case equipmet office space, jury room Sed Case to Elapsed time for jury Judge, bailiff, Computer Courtroom, Jury Istructios. attorey, clerical system, office court staff hours per case equipmet office space, jury room Re ad Coduct Appeal Elapsed time before appeal hearig, percet decisios upheld. Judge, bailiff, Computer Courtroom, attorey, clerical system, office court staff hours per case equipmet office space 34
T! YE B A SE L I1 V E S. P ST FM Table 2-8: Performace ad Requiremets Measures for Setece, Diagose ad Refer, Impose Probatio, Determie Actio for No-Compliace, ad Impose Puitive Sactios Fuctio Requiremets Measures Performace Measures Persoel Equipmet Facilities Setece Elapsed time to Judge, bailiff, Computer Courtroom, setece, percet pre- attorey, clerical system, office court staff setece ivestigatio hours per case equipmet office space recommedatios accepted, degree tf compliace with setecig guidelies. Diagose ad Refer Coduct Elapsed time for PSI, Probatio officer, Computer Probatio Ivestigatio percet essetial items clerical hours per system, office office space covered. case equipmet Refer Offeder Elapsed time to eroll Probatio officer, Computer Probatio i recommeded clerical hours per system, office office space program, percet case equipmet offeders erollig. Prepare Elapsed time to Probatio officer, Computer Probatio Ivestigatio complete report. clerical hours per system, office office space Report case equipmet Impose Probatio Perform Treat- Elapsed time for Treatmet staff, Computer Treatmet met treatmet, percet clerical hours per system, office facilities treatmet completed, case equipmet treatmet effectiveess. Detemae Actio for No-Compliace Notify Court of Elapsed time to otify, Probatio officer, Computer Probatio' Probatio percet offeders clerical hours per system, office office space Violatio violatig. case equipmet Notify Parties of Elapsed time to otify. Clerical hours Computer Court staff Probatio per case system, office office space Violatio equipmet Hearig Coduct Elapsed time for Probatio officer, Computer Courtroom, Probatio hearig, percet vio judge, bailiff, system, office court staff Violatio latios upheld, percet attorey, clerical equipmet office space Hearig probatios termiated. hours per case Impose Puitive Percet fie, jail, etc. Correctios, Computer Jail space, Sactios fulfilled; time probatio. DMV system, office DMV office icapacitated hours per case equipmet space, probatio staff space 35
3 - CASE STUDIES OF OPERATING SYSTEMS Case studies of DWI eforcemet systems i three jurisdictios were coducted to get more iformatio about how such systems operate. This chapter describes how the case study sites were selected, our procedures for coductig the case studies, ad the fidigs of the studies. SELECTION OF CASE STUDY SITES The most basic site selectio criteria were (1) the existece of statutes requirig eforcemet of several BAC limits for various target groups, ad (2) havig a rage of differig eforcemet techiques for these BAC limits. As idicated i Chapter 2, BAC limits of cocer i this project are: Group BAC Limit All Drivers DWI 0.08, 0.10 DUI 0.05, 0.08 Uder Age 21 0.0-0.02 Commercial 0.04 Commercial 0 (Out of Service) The sites selected for recruitmet for participatio i the study had to meet a iitial scree that provided the appropriate mix of techiques ad BAC limits before additioal selectio criteria were applied. Sites were to be couties or cities rather tha states. Additioal site criteria icluded havig appropriate data available atleastto make rudimetary assessmets of system fuctioality. This icluded such iformatio as umber of DWI arrests, BAC levels of arrestees, DWI covictio data, iformatio o sactios applied ad compliace therewith, ad crash data icludig time of day so that ighttime crashes could be used as a proxy of alcohol-related crashes. Though this project was ot a evaluatio project, these types of data were eeded for preparig a thorough system descriptio, idetifyig failure modes, ad estimatig levels of performace. Systems that appeared to be performig satisfactorily ad also those that appeared ot to be performig satisfactorily were cosidered for iclusio i the study. Although the data idicated above permitted a more objective assessmet of that issue as the project progressed, at the time of site selectio ad recruitmet, we had to rely o more subjective measures. These icluded opiios of NHTSA 37
PROBLEMSAND SOLU77ONSINDWI EVFORCEW-NT SYSTEMS regioal office, state specialists, staff from Goveror's Highway Safety Program (GHSP) offices, ad professioals i cadidate sites. Aother importat site criterio was cooperativeess of the various actors i the system at prospective sites. A study of this ature requires that those operatig the system be willig ad able to opely participate i the study. Potetial participats icluded local, couty ad state police, prosecutors, judges, probatio officers, problem drikig assessors, treatmet professioals, licesig officials, hearig officers, chemists, commuicatios specialists, members of the media ad offeders. We assessed cooperativeess by askig persoel i GHSP offices about specific jurisdictios. For sites that met the iitial site selectio criteria, telephoic cotacts were made with key players i the jurisdictios to assess iterest further, ad these were followed up by site-recruitmet visits before commitmet was made. We also sought sites distributed geographically across the coutry, ad represetative of a rage of socioecoomic ad urbaicity characteristics. Sites were cosidered i states with ad without admiistrative licese revocatio. Fially, we looked for sites that had recetly established ew BAC limits ad also sites that had their limits. i place for a loger time. The former type of site would have persoel who would be more likely to recall the system desig cosideratios associated with carryig out the ew limits, while the latter type would have more iformatio o how the system was actually fuctioig. A careful balacig of those two issues was made, with particular attetio to the quality of potetial cooperators withi the sites. Three sites were ultimately selected based o these criteria, viz : Scottsdale, Arizoa; Rockdale Couty, Georgia; ad Palm Beach Couty, Florida CASE STUDY PROCEDURES The case studies were based o data collected durig site visits lastig from three to five days. Both pricipal ivestigators of the study participated i the site visits. The site visits employed a variety of iformatio-gatherig techiques, icludig: 1. A half-day mii semiar with key actors i the local DWI eforcemet system i which the basic system desig of the jurisdictio was discussed, major problem areas idetified, ad some possible fixes to problems elicited. Police persoel participatig icluded oe ortwo shift commaders, geeral patrol officers, ad special DWI patrol officers (if applicable). A prosecutig attorey with strog experiece i DWI cases, ad a traffic cout judge who hadled may DWI cases was preset at the semiars. These adjudicatio ad sactioig persoel were eeded because of the strog iflueces these 38
CASE STUDIES OF OPERA77NG SPS?T.A fuctios have o eforcemet (ad vice versa), ad to help clarify, where eeded, some legal issues ivolved. 2. Oe-o-oe discussios with operatioal staff performig various fuctios at the task level. The purpose here was to verify ad describe i further detail the operatioal fuctios beig performed i eforcig the BAC laws. Each fuctio was discussed sequetially to fid out how ad by whom they were performed ad to idetify the equipmet ad facilities used i performig the fuctios. 3. Observatios of the performace of critical system fuctios ad tasks (e.g., surveillace, ad detectio). The observatios icluded ride-alogs i patrol cars, viewig of offeder processig, ad watchig court processig, icludig arraigmets, trials, ad setecig. CASE STUDY RESULTS - SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA Site Descriptio Scottsdale is o the east side of Phoeix i Maricopa Couty, Arizoa ad ecompasses 185 square miles. Accordig to 1990 U. S. Cesus Data, the populatio of 130,000 idividuals was 96% white, 1% black ad 3% other races. Sixty-six percet (66%) of that populatio were betwee the ages of 18 ad 64, 18% were uder age IS, ad 16% were 65 or older. The 1994 City of Scottsdale Facts sheet reports a populatio of 165,430 with a media age of 39.1 years. Per capita persoal icome i 1989 accordig to the U.S. Cesus Data was $23,482, higher tha Maricopa Couty per capita icome reported as $14,970. The couty uemploymet rate i 1994 was 4.9%. The media household icome was reported to be $54,251 i the 1994 City of Scottsdale Facts. System Descriptio Law Geeratio. Arizoa State Statutes require chemical tests of breath, blood, urie, or "other bodily substaces" for idividuals arrested for operatig a motor vehicle uder the ifluece of alcohol or other drugs. I the past, Scottsdale police officers admiistered breath tests to such idividuals. However, defese attoreys questioed the reliability of breath tests based upo may issues ragig from the proper maiteace ad calibratio of the equipmet to the qualificatios of officers admiisterig the tests. Cosequetly, authorities i Scottsdale decided to elimiate such questios by admiisterig oly blood tests to persos arrested for DUL State Statute already allowed for police officers to request medical facility persoel who collect blood (ad also other bodily substaces) to supply samples from DUI suspects to law eforcemet authorities for testig. Such samples ca be obtaied via search warrats if the suspect refuses to cooperate. The illegal per se limit for adults i Arizoa is 0.10. Scottsdale's ati-dui eforcemet system is curretly operatig 39
PROBLEMSAND SOLUIIONSINDWI ENFORCFM. E SYSTF.tW uder these statutes. Refusals are discussed uder the Eforcemet sectio that follows. Eforcemet. Multi jurisdictioal DUI task forces have proved very successful i the Scottsdale area by providig cooperatio ad support amog the differet agecies ad jurisdictios. Up to te differet Maricopa Couty ad State law eforcemet agecies have participated i the task forces. These operatios were highly praised by the police officers we iterviewed ad by judges but are typically coducted oly durig holiday periods. The Scottsdale Police Departmet routiely operates special DUI police uits. Geeral patrol officers, after makig a stop, ca call for a DUI uit to hadle further processig of the suspect. This procedure is frequetly followed. Whe a citize complait is received, the earest patrol car is dispatched. Whe coditios permit, the officer respodig to the complait tries to observe drivig patters before stoppig the suspected impaired driver. After a vehicle stop, the officerwill questio the driver. If the officer suspects the driver of beig uder the ifluece or itoxicated, stadardized field sobriety testig (SFST) will be admiistered. If the driver demostrates impairmet, the officer arrests ad places the suspect ito the patrol car. The suspect's vehicle is legally parked or towed at the ower's choice. The officer the completes a uiform traffic ticket (UTT), ad a record check of the suspect is ru o the computer i the patrol car. The suspect's drivig history is checked to fid out whether the offese is a misdemeaor or a feloy. Feloy charges are made whe there are two prior DUI offeses, the DUI offese occurs o a suspeded or revoked driver licese, if a child uder the age of 15 is i the vehicle, or if a death or serious ijury has resulted from a crash. A ticket is issued for a misdemeaor, but ot for a feloy or "aggravated" DUI charge. A "log form" provided by the District Attorey's office must be completed for a feloy charge. The feloy suspect must bebooked, as opposed to a "field release" for misdemeaor charges. Motorcycle officers must call i via a telephoe to decide charges, because o computers are o the motorcycles. The driver licese suspesio is hadled routiely by the officer. The order-of-suspesio portio of the admiistrative per se ad implied coset affidavit is completed showig a 90 cosecutive day suspesio (12 moths for a test refusal). After the subject is placed uder arrest, the officer reads aloud to the suspect the text of the implied coset form askig if the suspect will coset to a blood test at a hospital. The officer iitials each block of text as it is read ad the asks if the suspect uderstads what has just bee read, because this has bee a issue i the past. If the suspect replies that he or she uderstads ad will coset to a blood test, the officer telephoes a hospital to prepare for the test ad trasports the suspect to the hospital. The Scottsdale Police Departmet has agreemets with two hospitals to provide this service to miimize the time required to trasport arrestees to the testig facility. 40
CASESTUDIF.S OF OPERATING SYSTEMS' At the hospital two vials of blood are draw from the suspect. Both vials are labeled, placed i a shippig cotaier ad trasferred to the toxicological lab for processig followig careful chai of evidece procedures. The Scottsdale Police Departmet operates its ow toxicological laboratory ad thus does its ow blood alcohol aalyses usig oe of the vials. The suspect is iformed about how to obtai the secod vial if the suspect desires a idepedet test. Officers support the use of blood tests versus breath because they result i fewer validity argumets. Figer prits are also take at the hospital to isure that questios of idetity of the offeder may be addressed if ecessary. For a refusal, a twelve moth licese suspesio is served o the offeder. This completes the admiistrative per se civil process. At that time the officer turs his or her attetio to collectig BAC evidece for the crimial charge. The officer iforms the suspect that a judge will be cotacted ad a search warrat will be requested. The subject is told: "If the judge grats the search warrat, you will o loger have the right to refuse." For day time search warrat requests, the officer requests the search warrat i perso. For ight time search warrats, the requests are hadled by a faxed telephoic search warrat request procedure. Three judges rotate turs so that oe is always "o-call" ad available to officers. If the suspect cotiues to refuse, the officer cotacts the judge by telephoe who the swears i the officer over the telephoe. The officer faxes a affidavit ad search warrat to the judge. If the judge fids probable cause the judge sigs the search warrat ad affidavit ad faxes them back to the officer. The warrat authorizes blood to be take from a test refuser. Reportedly, this system has worked well. If a idividual refuses to submit to a blood test ad a warrat is issued, the blood sample is draw at the police statio by a o-call licesed phlebotomist. This is doe because the subject ca be more readily restraied i the police settig. Occasioally, for example whe the officer is coviced the subject is deathly afraid of eedles, a breath test is admiistered istead of the blood test. The officer will complete a bookig slip ad a departmet report (DR). Other forms, may cotaiig repetitive iformatio such as ame, date, driver licese umber, etc., are completed. The officers follow a checklist to make certai everythig has bee completed accordig to procedures. The officer otes whether ay phoe calls have bee made ad if a taxi or fried has bee called. Officers usually will ot trasport a suspect to jail uless the perso has outstadig warrats or other issues eed to be addressed. Sometimes, officers will eve drive suspects home if it is faster tha waitig for a fried to pick them up. Suspects are held overight if the idividual caot be released to a adult, if the perso does ot have a local address, or if the perso is cosidered a flight risk The typical arrest requires about oe hour of the officer's time o the ight of the arrest. The ext actios requirig the police officers ivolvemet could be defese iterviews, DMV (Departmet of Motor Vehicle) hearigs, or officers may be called to testify i court. Officers are also required to appear for feloy arraigmets. The officers iterviewed durig our visit reported 95-98% of DUI cases are plead out. 41
PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCEUMT SYSTEMS Oe officer said that i 1996, he made 136 DUI arrests ad oly three wet to trial. Aother officer reported appearig at two jury trials ad eight evidetiary hearigs i five years. Mothly, officers receive a list of potetial court dates. They are otified by a voice mail system a day before a court appearace if their appearace will actually be eeded. They also are iterviewed by defese attoreys ad sped time i admiistrative hearigs. Prosecutors reported that the 0.04 law for commercial truckers is ot heavily eforced ad that passive sesors are ot used. Adjudicatio. If held for arraigmet, the 'suspect ca "bod out" before appearig before a muicipal courtjudge for arraigmet. A bod schedule is used for misdemeaor offeses ($500 per offese, $1,000 for higher levels of offeses). Very few juveile cases occur, these cases are hadled by city court, as are all other traffic violatios for juveiles. Juveile defedats may be charged with liquor law violatios ad zero tolerace violatios, but receive o j ail time for ay resultig covictios of these charges. DUI suspects are arraiged idividually i muicipal court, typically withi oe week of arrest (bylaw withi 10 days of arrest). The judge advises the defedat of rights ad setecig bouds. Almost all DUI defedats plead ot guilty at arraigmet Judges will rarely accept a guilty plea at arraigmet because they believe that defedats do ot have eough iformatio about rights, procedures, cosequeces, etc. to decide. Also, judges eed to be certai that the defedat's backgroud check is complete, especially cocerig possible prior offeses, adthat type of iformatio may ot be available at the time of arraigmet. Also, sometimes the blood alcohol test results are ot available at arraigmet Prosecutors are ot preset at arraigmets. The court does ot appoit public defeders at the arraigmet O the rare occasio whe a judge does accept a guilty plea, the defedat has the optio of chagig the plea later. Feloy DUI cases are trasferred to Couty Court. The case will be dismissed i Muicipal Court if Couty Court agrees to take the case. Curretly, six assistat city prosecutors are employed, ad all hadle DUI cases amog their caseloads. A seveth assistat city prosecutor positio will soo be created ad will be dedicated to hadlig photo': radar cases. A prosecutor will receive a "otice of appearace" from a defese attorey i respose to the defese's request for a "discovery" meetig. The meetig usually occurs before the arraigmet If a suspect is ot represeted by a defese attorey, the the prosecutor has o cotact with the suspect util the pre-trial coferece that is usually scheduled five to six weeks after arraigmet. The court otifies the prosecutor of a arraigmet with a idicatio of the plea. The triggerig actio for a prosecutor is ofte a copy of the UTT that is typically set to a prosecutor after a arraigmet I the past, prosecutors tried to atted arraigmets, but too much time was required "waitig aroud" for the proceedigs, so their attedace was stopped. 42
CASESTUDIES OFOPFRATTNG SYSTE.12' Usually the prosecutor, the defedat's defese attorey ad the defedat (if a plea is to be made) are preset at a pre-trial coferece. Ofte, defedats will appear at their first pre-trial coferece without cousel, ad the prosecutor will advise them of their right to a public defeder at a omial cost of $175. No pre-trial diversio is available for DUI charges. Twety to 25 percet of DUI defedats are said to plead guilty after the pre-trial coferece. Pleas to lesser offeses are sometimes accepted whe blood alcohol cocetratios (BACs) are less tha 0.10 or if it were ucertai that the perso was the driver of the vehicle. Defedats with a BAC of 0.10-0.11 with solid objective evidece of probable cause will ot be pleaded dow. Cases that go to trial are geerally disposed of withi oe year. The prosecutor prepares for the case the day before the trial ad sometimes o the day of the trial. Usually, the prosecutor has o chace to talk to the arrestig officer util the trial day whe the prosecutor appears i court with a "box full of cases." The prosecutio is more likely to accept a plea o the day of the trial because of the large umber of cases. However, prosecutors usually do ot object to some cotiuaces because it meas they ca deal with the case later. Most misdemeaor trials are DUI cases ad the average legth of time required is 1.5 to two days. Most are also jury trials; bech trials are rare. Arizoa is a admiistrative per se state ad officers may be subpoeaed to appear at admiistrative hearigs. Admiistrative decisios are appealed to Couty Court. A trial de ovo o appeal caot occur uless the record is icomplete. Motios are appealed o the record. Disicetives to file appeals do ot exist, although decisios are rarely overtured. Zero BAC per se cases for youth are almost ever appealed. Sactioig. Miimum sactios are ofte imposed for misdemeaor cases. For the first DUI offese, the jail setece is 10 days with all but oe day suspeded upo completio of alcohol classes. If a offeder is seteced to jail, he or she ca schedule whe that jail time is to be served. Jail seteces are ofte ot fulfilled to their full extet due to "two for oe" (two days off for each served) ad work release programs. Time ca be suspeded if the offeder accepts alcohol screeig. Offeders from outside Scottsdale may serve jail time i their ow jurisdictio; they must post bail ad the are released. Treatmet is madated ad so is usually ot a issue. Priors are dropped if the offeses happeed more tha five years before the curret offese. Probatio is rare because the city court has o probatio departmet. Problem Areas ad Possible Fixes Eforcemet Issues. Police officers are ot receivig subpoeas to appear for DMV hearigs uder the admiistrative per se statute util a few days before the hearig. E-mail might provide oe solutio to this problem. Reasos for officers 43
PROBLEMSAND SOL U77ONS IN DWI EMFORCE IVT SYSM& failig to appear at these hearigs iclude coflictig court appearaces, traiig, sickess, or vacatio. Court cases take precedece over the per se hearigs, ad time does ot permit reschedulig the hearig. As a result, the admiistrative sactio is lost. A loger advace otice of the hearig is eeded to alleviate this problem. Evidetiw~yHeariglssues These issues iclude istaces whe Mirada rights were ot read to the suspect ad, more ofte, the suspect asked for a attorey ad was ot allowed a phoe call before the blood test. These ca result i the case beig dismissed. Also, probable cause for the stop ca be questioed. A potetial problem area would be if the phlebotomist were called to testify. However, the phlebotomist is ot idetified o ay reports (by statute, this is ot required) ad thus caot be called ito court to testify; this issue has bee addressed i court ad to date the policy has remaied. Also, the officer may be "rusty" ad his or her field performace could be a issue. Regular traiig ca provide solutios for these types of problems. The accuracy of breath tests was ofte questioed i past cases that, as stated previously, have resulted i the successful use of blood tests. Adjudicatio Issues A study by a court staff member foud that 40% of all DUI cases took moretha 150 days after arrest for dispositio. Twelve percet were more tha oe year old. These figures do ot iclude suspects who have failed to appear. May failures to appear (FTAs) are occurrig, up to 50% some days, but appearace is ot required i muicipal court. Cotiuace of cases causes major problems. Oe DUI case had 29 cotiuaces. May cotiuaces are grated because of schedule coflicts: lawyers get cotiuaces to appear i a higher court, defese lawyers have too may cases, etc. ad as stated previously, prosecutors do ot object because they have such heavy case loads. At least oe judge would like to set a limit of two cotiuaces per case. I the past, "caledar calls" were iitiated i which the bailiffwould call the defese lawyer a week before trial to fid out if a cotiuace was eeded. The prosecutor would-check with the bailiff to see which trials were still set. This procedure was chaged to require both attoreys physically to appear i court to say if they were prepared to proceed o the scheduled date. Usually the defedat will sit for trial after several pre-trial cofereces show o plea. The court staff study foud 16-17% of DUI cases go to trial. Backlogs occur because as may as 5-15 jury trials may be set for oe day, whe oly oe ca go o at a time. Oldest cases receive priority. Trial participats will usually ot show if a request for a cotiuace has bee filed before the trial date. Bech trials are rare, but a bill will be proposed soo to elimiate jury trial eligibility for a first offese DUI case. Sactioig issues. Complete jail seteces are ot fulfilled due to work releases ad the "two for oe" policy. Also, time may be suspeded if the defedat accepts 44
CASE STUDIES OF OPERATING SYS'!E?V a alcohol screeig to lear the extet of alcohol use ad/or abuse by the idividual. Miimum seteces are ofte imposed. CASE STUDY RESULTS - ROCKDALE COUNTY, GEORGIA Site Descriptio Rockdale, the couty with the smallest area i Georgia, is southeast of Atlata. The couty ecompasses small urba, suburba ad rural areas. The couty seat is i Coyers, Georgia. Accordig to the Bureau of the Cesus, the populatio of Rockdale Couty has bee icreasig steadily from 36,600 i 1980 to a 1995 populatio of 64,500. I 1990, roughly 64% of the 54,100 idividuals residig i Rockdale Couty were betwee the ages of 18 ad 64,28% were uder age 18, ad 8% were 65 or older. Niety percet (90%) of the populatio i 1990 were white, 8% were black, 1 % Asia or Pacific Islader, ad 1 % were other races. Per capita. persoal icome for the Couty i 1993 was $19,267. The 1994 uemploymet rate was 3.7%, lower tha the Georgia state uemploymet rate of 5.2% for that year. System Descriptio Rockdale Couty is reportedly ot typical of other jurisdictios i Georgia i hadlig DUI cases. System actors kow each other ad cooperate ad educate each other about the system ad cases. Cosiderable cotiuity exists amog staff who remai available always to help each other. They appear proud of their accomplishmets as part of the ati-dui system ad appear to ejoy a high level of camaraderie. The judge keeps statistics o every case, gettig iformatio o "pleaders" just before the prooucemet of a guilty verdict ad the usig that iformatio to structure seteces. Police officers ad prosecutors discuss each case together before court appearaces. Law Geeratio. Georgia is curretly a 0.10 state, although the persos we talked with support 0.08 per se laws ad hope Georgia will joi other states i passig those laws. Oe Rockdale prosecutor believes a atiowide BAC stadard should be established. Reportedly DUI laws are chaged i Georgia almost every year ad, cosequetly, stayig abreast of the law is difficult. Georgia has a admiistrative per se statute. Eforcemet. DUI "road checks" are coducted every holiday period. Problems have occurred whe drivers who appear impaired whe questioed record BACs less tha 0.10. Sometimes, officers caot prove from drivig actios that such a driver was impaired. "Cocetrated patrols" are carried out oce a moth. Coyers city police have o DUI task force, but a "special operatios" group is plaed which will iclude ati-dui eforcemet Curretly, DUI suspects are foud while respodig 45
PROBLFMSAND SOL UTTONSJN DWI ENFORC MENT SYSTEN& to calls for service, but police cocetrate sometimes o areas ivolvig citize complaits. Much media coverage of DUI due to crashes has occurred. Citizes ca call *GSP o cell phoes that, reportedly results i may DUI stops. Judges urge police officers to obtai as much iformatio as possible from citizes reportig DUI suspects; ecourage the reporter to follow the DUI suspect (if possible to do so safely) ad ecourage the police to obtai the reporter's ame ad address. Officers videotape DUI suspects begiig immediately upo suspicio that the driver is DUI. Videotape helps establish the officer's credibility. Jurors wat to see a complete videotape record coverig all actios, ot just those that "make the case." Oe officer idetified a problem of perspective "distortio" due to the locatio of the video camera. He also discussed the beefits of ot waitig to stop a vehicle after capturig erratic drivig patters o videotape; this avoids log episodes ofo erratic drivig that could be used by the defese to questio probable cause. After stoppig a DUI suspect, the officer asks the suspect to take a SFST. The police officer's safety is always a cosideratio, ad sometimes the SFST will ot be completed because of the eed to get a dagerous suspect ito the patrol car. The officer documets the reaso a SFST was ot completed. I these cases, the idividual is give a Prelimiary Breath Test (PBT). Arrests are made at the scee before trasportig the suspect. The SFST form is completed at the arrest scee. Usually the implied coset law is read to the suspect while i the patrol car. I Rockdale Couty, some officers do ot complete the admiistrative per se forms. If the suspect wis the crimial case, uder Georgia statute, the refusal violatio is ull ad void, ad the licese is ot suspeded. Most importat, the licese hearigs are said to have become "fishig expeditios" for the defese. By ot completig the forms to take the licese, the hearigs are elimiated. Police officers believe that most hearig officers do ot kow DUI law or what the scope should be of these hearigs. Oe officer lost a implied coset case because he did ot have the actual card cotaiig the implied coset rights that he read to the defedat. The officer stays with the vehicle util it is impouded or released to aother perso; the procedure depeds o the locatio of the stop. A vehicle release form is filled out Druk passegers are drive home or released to a sober perso. The suspect is trasported to the jail for a breath test or to the hospital for a blood test If certified, the arrestig officer will admiister the breath test, otherwise a certified officer will coduct the test A madatory 20 miute waitig period from time of iitial persoal cotact is required before a evidetiary breath test is take. After the test, idividuals are released to the jailer. If the suspect's BAC is much lower tha the legal limit ad the officer sees impairmet icosistet with the BAC readig, the officer will request a blood or urie test Idividuals are held util their BAC is 0.05 or less. Those of age 21 or higher who have a BAC of 0.08 or more are held for 24 hours. The officer completes the icidet report (1R)..withi five days. Oe hour of processig time is typical, ot icludig completig the M. Total time to process a 46
C.ASESTUDIES OFOPF.R 4TING SYSTEMS DUI arrest icludig forms averages 1.5-2 hours. If the suspect requests a additioal test, aother 40 miutes or so are required. Adjudicatio. DUI tickets are brought to the prosecutig clerk's office. DUI defedats do ot get a chace to come to court o just the ticket; prosecutors have to file the case first. This allows prosecutors time to prepare the case before the speedy trial clock starts. The laws regardig speedy trials require a case to be tried withi the remaider of the curret court sessio or by the ed of the ext court sessio. Each court sessio is three moths log, so a case goig to trial will be completed withi a maximum of 180 days. A Crimial Case Maagemet System has bee i place sice 1987. This system tracks each case through the etire crimial justice system icludig jail. Rockdale Couty court is classified as a "state court." There are oe judge, oe crimial justice system admiistrator, three ivestigators ad seve prosecutors i Rockdale Couty. The prosecutio receives the ticket, breath alcohol testig (BAT) tape, rus a crimial history, driver history, ad the starts fillig out the forms. Driver history data appear to go back to 1976. Priors are recorded ad classified, for example, first i five years ad secod i life. Ivestigators compile a witess list, make sure all the ecessary iformatio is i the case folder, ad hadle ay ivestigative work eeded. They also prepare a summary of the facts of the case ad the charge. The file icludes the police officer's IR, refusal iformatio, car. impoud form ad bod sheet. The formal documet filed is called a "accusatio," aalogous to a "crimial complait." The Uiform Traffic Citatio (UTC) ca also be ratified ad filed as a accusatio. The package is the set to the resposible prosecutor. Prosecutors meet oce a moth to discuss the accusatios that are the batched ad set to the judge's clerk or else released. All prosecutors have access to Crimial Justice System (CJS data; public defeders also have read-oly access to the data o their ow screes. A "Prosecutor's Module" will soo allow CJS data to be merged ito a WordPerfect documet, thus elimiatig repetitive etry of iformatio (e.g., ame, address, date of birth, etc.). Refusals ca be used as evidece i a DUI trial. Whe buildig a case, the prosecutors believe it best to rely o the officer's observatio of the suspect's behavior ad ot etirely o a BAT. They believe that officers should observe every SFST as if there were ot goig to be a BAT, ad they should documet observatios. This is because if the iformatio is ot available i the paperwork submitted for discovery, it may ot be admitted ito evidece. Also, the videotaped sessio should iclude a recorded arrative of the suspect's behavior, the camera does ot record subtle actios by the suspect. Police officers i Rockdale Couty believe the court there has a proper DUI adjudicatio system ad report it is "much more picky" tha other courts ad imposes tougher seteces. These tougher seteces are thought to result i fewer guilty pleas because offeders fear the impositio of setece ad hope to be foud ot guilty at 47
PROBLF SAND SOLUTIONSINDWIFIVFORC MF.NrSYSIT trial. The officers do ot appear at arraigmets. Defedats who wat to plead out come back later to eter a plea. Few DUI cases go to trial; oe officer reported that out of 800 DUI arrests, he oly testified at four jury trials. A prosecutor reported that oly four out of 62 DUI cases o the docket o a particular day would be tried. Officers, evertheless, must be prepared to take all cases to trial. Preparatio will result i "wiig" cases through guilty pleas though there is o trial. A prosecutor reported that writte, documeted iformatio is extremely importat. I earlier years, it was reported that police maagemet would ot permit officers to make detailed reports because they were too time cosumig. A importat observatio was to be careful whe attemptig to reduce paperwork, ot to elimiate useful iformatio. The judge who was iterviewed for the project believes DUI cases are the most difficult trials of all, icludig murder cases. Juries itroduce great ucertaity ito the process because they are iflueced by experieces, iaccurate or wrog iformatio, miscoceptios, etc. Much iformatio provided durig the trials ivolves legal complexities ad is techical i ature, which cofuses some jurors. Sactioig. Pre setece ivestigatios are ot routiely performed, although the judge does questio suspects at arraigmet ad at trial just before setecig. Offeders are usually seteced to assessmet ad treatmet as determied by assessors plus some jail time followed by house arrest. Submissio to periodic breath alcohol tests is also ofte required. Pictures of covicted DUI offeders are published i the ewspaper alog with seteces; all DUI offeders must atted a victim's impact pael. Problem Areas ad Possible Fixes Law Geeratio Issues. Reportedly, DUI laws are chaged i Georgia almost every year ad, cosequetly, stayig abreast of the law is difficult. All CourtJustice System (CJS) staff should get a copy of law chages each year i laguage that is uderstadable ad should atted a briefig o those chages. The provisio of the Georgia Statutes which vacates a admiistrative per se licese suspesio if the crimial case results i a ot guilty verdict has udermied use of the admiistrative per se law by law eforcemet officers. This ca most likely be resolved through law geeratio where the crimial ad admiistrative tracks would be more thoroughly separated, as they are i may other admiistrative per se states. Adjudicatio Issues. The District Attorey has to approve UTC as a "accusatio." This results i large groups of offeses movig to trial simultaeously. This crowds the dockets with DUI cases durig some periods ad leaves them relatively free of DUI cases at other times. More routie filig of DUI accusatios could relieve this problem. 48
CASE STUDIES OF OPERATING SYSTE?4S CASE STUDY RESULTS - PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA Site Descriptio Palm Beach Couty is located i southeaster Florida borderig o the Atlatic Ocea. U.S. Cesus data for 1995 lists a estimated populatio of 972,093, a icrease of 68.5% over that i 1990. I 1990, 85% of the populatio was white, 12% was black ad 3% were other races. Twety-five percet of the estimated populatio i 1995 was age 65 or older. Per capita persoal icome i 1993 was $32,230, ad the uemploymet rate i 1996 was 8.3 percet The state uemploymet rate has bee decliig from 8.3 i 1992 to 5.1 i 1996. 1 System Descriptio Law Geeratio. The illegal BAC level i Florida is 0.08; a ew 0.02 law for persos uder the age of 21 wet ito effect Jauary 1, 1997. If someoe less tha 21 is stopped for ay reaso, ad the officer smells alcohol o the perso's breath, the officer does ot eed probable cause for DUI at that poit to request a breath test. If a perso less tha 21 does ot give a breath test, he or she will be give a citatio ad will lose his/her licese for oe year. If the uder 21 perso takes the test ad registers a BAC of 0.02-0.08, the result is the. loss of the driver licese for six moths. Eforcemet. DWI laws are eforced by the Florida State Patrol, the Palm Beach Couty Sheriff's Departmet, ad the various local eforcemet agecies i the couty. Reportedly, cities i Florida are more active i ati-dui eforcemet tha they were i the past Sometimes checkpoits are coducted i cooperatio with other agecies. The Florida State Patrol has a three-perso DUI task force i Palm Beach Couty workig 10 hour days from Thursday through Suday. Oe trooper believes DUI offeders are ot as "prevalet" as they used to be o the roadways. Traffic is lighter durig the week. Oe trooper says 2.5-3.0 hours are "lost" i processig a DUI arrestee; more troopers are eeded. This umber is dow from a estimated 4.0, maily due to recet reductios i paperwork requiremets. The Sheriff's Departmet formerly had a DWI Task Force, but that has bee discotiued. Now, most of DWI eforcemet is doe by regular patrol uits ad by the traffic homicide uit. Sources idicate a de-emphasizig of DWI eforcemet i recet years. Overall, the DWI arrest rate i the couty is low compared to the atioal average. Available data idicate some to 2,000 to 3,000 DWI arrests per year which amouts to roughly 0.3 % of licesed drivers. The Florida Departmet of Trasportatio uses PBTs for eforcemet of the commercial vehicle operator 0.04 law. PBTs ca be used i other couties to prove 49
PROBLE T'AND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCE. NT SYSTEMS' probable cause. Palm Beach Couty has o rules goverig admissibility of PBT results. PBTs are used by the Sheriffs Departmet regular patrol officers oly for the eforcemet of 0.02 law for miors. Parets' cocer over "crimial records" for childre led to the requiremet for a PBT. They did ot wat to have youg persos arrested ad take to the "BAT cave" (the breath alcohol testig facility i the couty jail) for testig. Prosecutors did ot wat PBTs admiistered i regular DUI cases because they were cocered that police officers would ot coduct further ivestigatios ad would oly have PBT results that are ot admissible i court. If the PBT is used, the the evidetiary BAT caot be give. Evidetiary BATs caot be used for o-crimial testig ad the 0.02 laws for miors are treated that way. Thus, PBTs are oly used for greater tha 0.02 law violatios whe a actual DUI case is cosidered ulikely ad i commercial vehicle operator 0.04 eforcemet. PBTs are used for per se violatios oly whe there are overlappig crimial DUI violatios. Florida law requires a DUI arrestee be held i jail for eight hours, or util the BAC is less tha 0.05; idividuals are usually held rather tha tested. SFSTs are videotaped at the roadside if the patrol vehicle is equipped to do so. A judge commeted that the videotapes were ofte of poor quality due to poor techique ad iadequate equipmet, but that good quality videotapes are effective tools i court. She said aother problem was the log amout of time it takes the officer ad suspect to reach the "BAT cave" (sometimes 1.0-1.5 hours) because of the large area covered ad few testig statios. After that amout of time, the suspect may ot show as much impairmetwhe videotaped as whe arrested. Thus, oly the admiistratio of the BAT ad related questioig are videotaped i the "BAT cave." A judge stated that police officers too frequetly ask questios by rote that ofte do ot apply ad seem silly i cotext. Some officers do ot uderstad that questios provided o forms ad i mauals are iteded oly as guidelies. Adjudicatio. Two trial-level courts hear most DUI-related cases, Couty Court for misdemeaors ad Circuit Court for feloies. Pre setece ivestigatios are ot doe for misdemeaor cases. Pleas are accepted at arraigmet, ad setecig may occur immediately or later. Thirty to 50 percet of idividuals charged with DUI plead at arraigmet where the judge, prosecutor ad public defeder or a defese attorey are preset. Repeat offeders may also eter pleas at arraigmet. The prosecutor will cotact other states directly where the idividual has had driver liceses, but sometimes it is difficult gettig iformatio from other states. The judge gives everyoe a chace to speak ad looks at the drivig record before setecig. The judge usually accepts egotiated dispositios. Defedats who do ot eter pleas appear three weeks later for "case dispositio." There, the prosecutor is asked if evidece was provided for discovery ad if the defedat was offered aplea at arraigmet. After case dispositio, attoreys ad the judge will meet agai for status checks. Officers ad breath test techicias 50
CASE STUDIES OF OPERATING SYSTE? usually have oly a couple of court appearaces. The judge usually does ot grat a cotiuace after the secod status check. Motios to dismiss may be preseted betwee status checks. "Judge shoppig" is ot possible; cases are assiged radomly to judges. Defedats caot be offered a plea bargai at trial. The prosecutor's office has a policy of ot acceptig a egotiated plea after "caledar call" (the Friday before a trial). Whe defese attoreys wi DUI cases, it is mostly through pre-trial motios. Motios to suppress iclude: o probable cause for the stop, a failure to wait 20 miutes before admiisterig the breath test, SFST (tasks or exercises), or machierelated issues such as calibratio ad accuracy. BAC techicias have "a lot of cases" ad have to "ru aroud betwee court rooms." BAT results may be itroduced with a affidavit oly, ad may lose o a techicality. Horizotal gaze ystagmus (HGN) is ot admissible i this jurisdictio because courts believe it has to be admiistered uder "cotrolled coditios," requirig a "true expert."' Oly two officers i Palm Beach Couty qualify as HGN experts. A officer explais they ca admiister HGN, but officers do ot always uderstad the relatioship to impairmet. This meas they do ot kow how to testify i court about the use ofhgn (ad perhaps SFSTs). SFSTs are ot covicig to jurors who do ot uderstad the relatioship of tests (called "exercises") to impairmet. Most appeals are DUI cases with trial error as the mai grouds for appeal (a estimated oe appeal for every six trials for all offeses icludig DUI). Most covictios are upheld. Probatio officers are i every courtroom. Defedats report to the probatio officers immediately after setecig. The probatio officers explai coditios to the offeders, have the offeders sig those coditios, dispese basic iformatio ad schedule the first appoitmet. Radom breath tests are sometimes required of offeders. Offeders must report mothly to oe officer. A hearig is held for probatio violatios, ad police officers have to appear to testify (if eeded) o the origial violatio. Officers areusually ot eeded. Uecessary police witesses are ofte required to appear, e.g., a "expert" o BAT. Eighty percet of admiistrative licese revocatios are said to result i hearigs. The defedat does ot have to atted, but the arrestig officer does, ad the defese attoreys are give "a free shot at the officers." Hearigs are shorter ow, because issues are limited. I other couties, defese attoreys are said to sometimes itimidate hearig officers. Overall, officer schedulig is poor - police officers get short otice (five days) ad have to prepare a writte request for a cotiuace. Some officers ad prosecutors believe that may judges are ot sympathetic to the special eeds of officers. Defese attoreys play this card routiely. The judge who was iterviewed for this study had ever had a DUI case ivolvig drugs other tha alcohol. The prosecutor does ot file them because either officers or prosecutors have received DUI-drug traiig. I this jurisdictio it must be determied that the suspect is uder the ifluece of a cotrolled substace iterpreted to mea a BAC-typeper se measuremet model for drugs. (Presece is 51
PROBLEMSAND SOLO rionsindwi ENFORCEMENT SYSTEW eough i may states.) Palm Beach Couty has o traied drug recogitio experts that are available for impaired drivig cases. Sactioig. Sactios are uiform for first offeders but vary for multiple offeders. For a first offese, the offeder will typically receive oe year of probatio, DUI school, ad have a-driver licese suspesio for six moths with a work permit. The driver licese caot be reistated util DUI school has bee completed. Offeders ofte do ot seek to have their driver liceses reistated due to barriers (e.g., fies are too expesive), ad the system loses cotact with them. (Note: This does ot mea these idividuals do ot drive; they are ot licesed, but may will still drive.) Ways exist to help offeders get liceses back by arragig for them to complete requiremets, e.g., covertig fies ito commuity service, gratig more time to pay. The defedat has the resposibility of provig that probatio coditios were completed. Repeat offeders receive madatory jail time if a secod offese has occurred. withi five years, or a third offese withi te years. The judge will grat work release, but time is served with five days per moth off for good behavior. House arrest with electroic moitorig is sometimes used as a sactio ad is hadled by the Palm Beach Couty Sheriffs Departmet. Oe judge did ot like the "sheriffs program for house arrest," believig oly a judge should impose house arrest. More itesive supervisio ("maximum") maybe imposed by the court orderig probatio officers to visit offeders at their homes. A judge ad a prosecutor iterviewed for this study believed that oe day of jail should equal three days of house arrest. Collectig fies ad supervisio costs is sometimes hard. Probatioers have to pay $45 per moth. Oe judge was more cocered with gettig moey for restitutio. A private, for-profit compay uder cotract to the Couty collects fies ad fees ad mails out restitutio paymets. This probatio compay ("PRIDE") collects moies from offeders ad coducts the DUI school but does ot moitor the treatmet providers. Alcohol evaluatio occurs i the DUI school, ad cliets are referred to separate treatmet from that school. The Florida Departmet of Correctios moitors the treatmet providers. PRIDE is moitored by a probati o review committee that icludes judges ad meets oce a moth; the cotract is reviewed aually. At oe time three probatio orgaizatios were used, oe govermet ad two private sector compaies. This created may problems ad much cofusio with probatioers reportig to wrog agecies, iformatio from providers beig set to wrog agecies, etc. The oly other issue was a coflict of iterest because PRIDE iitially provided the treatmet that they had recommeded to offeders; this was rectified by orderig separate treatmet providers. Multiple offeders with high BACs are sometimes seteced to the "drug farm" as a coditio of probatio; this is ofte i additio to jail time that must be served i a regular jail. (The drug farm is techically a jail.) The drug farm combies itesive substace abuse treatmet with a boot-camp type physical regime. Offeders with multiple DUIs withi a short period might also be seteced to the 52
CASE STUDIES OF OPERATING SYSTE? ' drug farm. The legth of time of treatmet depeds o the offeder's progress ad sometimes a offeder is give jail credit for ipatiet treatmet. The process to revoke probatio is started by filig a "violatio of probatio," schedulig a hearig, ad issuig a warrat to the judge to sig. The, a prelimiary hearig (aalogous to a arraigmet) is coducted with attoreys preset. Probatio will usually be reistated if the violatio was techical. A probatioer may have a secod prelimiary hearig. If ecessary, a fial hearig (similar to a trial) is the last step, which could result i termiatio of probatio ad impositio of sactios, usually jail. Problem Areas ad Possible Fixes A major problem i this couty is the relatively low DWI arrest rate. This is apparetly due to a lack of commad emphasis of DWI eforcemet. Processig ito jail is a problem because of the requiremet that the officer be preset. BAT vas or substatios are eeded, but curretly o fuds are available to pay for them. Most city police officers use the couty facility for BAT ad jail. There are o muicipal jails i the couty. May problems exist with the curret 0.02 law. If a juveile is stopped for some reaso other tha DUI-related drivig, admiistered SFSTs ad a PBT, ad registers above the legal limit, the officer has a problem because probable cause for DUI does ot exist. The driver caot be released because he or she is "uder the ifluece," ad juveile detetio ceters will ot accept idividuals ot uder arrest, or itoxicated miors. Aother problem is trasportig miors to a test facility; if the idividual is ot uder arrest, the perso caot techically betake ito custody ad trasported i a police vehicle. After a arrest occurs, the procedure for disposig of a juveile ad the vehicle is ot clear. Curretly, the parets are called to come ad get a juveile. If parets or guardias caot be reached, the vehicle is towed, but the procedure for placig the idividual is ot clear if he or she is less tha 18 years of age. Agai, juveile detetio ceters usually will ot accept DUI offeders because they are itoxicated ad jails caot admit miors. If the perso is more tha 18 years of age, he or she is processed as a adult. Aother problem is that a driver who has coseted to provide a PBT sample ca later refuse the secod evidetiary test because he or she already coseted to the PBT. A judge the will ot admit a refusal i court because the legal issues of multiple testig have bee deemed too complex to be uderstood by average drivers. (A PBT readig is ot admissible i court.) The state level task force recommeds a complete DUI ivestigatio before admiisterig a PBT. The Couty does ot have eough fuds to purchase the PBTs eeded to eforce the 0.02 law. It was proposed that $5-$10 be added to DUI fies to cover the cost of purchasig additioal PBTs. Whe a temporary permit is issued pedig impositio of a admiistrative per se suspesio it is possible that the offeder will immediately reoffed. A suggested 53
PROBLB&AND SOLUTHONSINDWI FNFOR SYSTFMS solutio to drivig while impaired shortly afterwards would be to make the permit effective 12-24 hours later. Iterviewig ad admiistratio of the breath test is doe at the "BAT cave," a cetralized locatio that is ofte a log distace from the scee of arrest (1.0-1.5 hours). As idicated above, a judge complaied that police officers too frequetly ask questios by rote durig the tapig sessio. This matter should be clarified i traiig. Fially, the couty has a problem i schedulig officers for admiistrative hearigs. This is due primarily to the short otice of the hearig (five days) give to police officers. The, if they will be uable to appear, the officers have to file a writte request for a cotiuace. The obvious immediate fixes for this problem are to exted the otice ad to elimiate the eed for filig a writte request for a cotiuace. It is also clear that there is a eed for a deeper examiatio of schedulig officer appearaces at judicial proceedigs of all types. This would help elimiate or reduce may coflicts that lead to the problem i schedulig officers for admiistrative hearigs. 54
4 - SYSTEM FAILURES AND SUGGESTED FIXES INTRODUCTION The prior chapters preseted a framework for aalyzig DWI eforcemet systems ad described the results of three case studies of operatig systems. This chapter applies this framework ad iformatio to the idetificatio of failures i DWI eforcemet systems. The, ways are suggested for correctig these failures ad improvig the performace of DWI eforcemet systems. Some factors to be cosidered i carryig out these fixes are. also discussed. Throughout; the performace of a DWI eforcemet system is measured by the system's ability to perform fuctios ad tasks believed to be related to alcohol-crash risk reductio. SYSTEM FAILURES This sectio is orgaized by the three top-level fuctios of a DWI eforcemet system of cocer i this study, i.e., Eforcemet; Adjudicatio; ad Sactioig. Withi each fuctioal area, major categories of fuctioal failures are defied ad discussed. The failures addressed do ot iclude all possible failures, but oly those judged by our pael ad other operatioal staff to have a sigificat impact o performace. Eforcemet Three fimctioal areas are of cocer here: Fid DWI Suspects, Cofirm Suspects as DWIs, ad Process DWIs i a Timely Maer. Failure to FidDWI Suspects. This class of failure maybe traced to oe or more factors (See Figure 4-1). First, there may be simply too few police uits observig for DWI. Geeral patrol uits maybe deployed i large umbers, but do ot actively look for DWIs. These uits act o oly the most flagrat DWI violatios observed while eforcig other types of law violatios. Special DWI eforcemet uits may 55
PROBL WAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTEI?S ot exist or are employed i isufficiet umbers adequately to cover the eforcemet agecy's geographical jurisdictio. Figure 4-1: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Fid DWI Suspects" Failure to Fid DIM Suspects Failure to Too Few Uits Iefficiet or Too Much Time Recogize o- Ieffective Use of observig for Ieffective Use of Sperd Couectig Road DM Citize Reportig DWIs Resources Data Behavior Aother factor leadig to a failure to fid DWI suspects is a police officer's iability to recogize DWI drivig behavior eve whe it is observed. A officer may ot be aware of the more subtle behaviors associated with DWI, ad ot classify a driver properly as a suspect. DWIs also may ot be foud whe existig resources are ot used efficietly or effectively. This is because uits do ot operate at times ad places where DWI violatios occur or because existig strategies are ot augmeted by other strategies such as saturatio patrol, citize reportig of DWI, ad sobriety checkpoits, amog others. Citize reports of suspected DWI icidets are used by some police agecies to augmet police efforts to fid DWI suspects. Iefficiet use of citize reportigthat hampers follow-up by police uits (for example, failure to arrage for pursuit of suspects across jurisdictioal boudaries) ca dimiish the value of this approach. Fially, too much time spet collectig data for DWI cases reduces the time available for observig for DWI by effectively takig a uit out of actio durig the data collectio. Collectig data foruse i adjudicatio ad sactioig fuctios are of especial cocer i this respect. Obviously, the processig of DWI suspects occurs after DWI suspects have bee foud ad stopped by eforcemet persoel. Particularly time-cosumig practices i processig DWIs after they have bee cofroted by a police officer are discussed below uder Failure to Arrest ad Process Corrfrrmed DWls. Failure to Cofirm Suspects as DWls. Two classes of failure-related factors are of cocer here (Figure 4-2). The first is a police officer's failure to observe for sigs o falcohol impairmet. Sometimes, a officer will rely almost etirely o BAC measuremets to decide whether a suspect is impaired by alcohol. Problems i obtaiig a accurate BAC readig ca result i a officer's releasig a alcohol-im 56
SYSTFMFAILURFSAND SUGGESTED FLYF.S paired suspect. It also ca lead to a dismissal of a case or to a ot guilty verdict if the BAC readig is successfully attacked by the defese durig adjudicatio. Figure 4-2: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Cofirm Suspects as DWIs" Failure to Cofirm Suspects as DWIs Failure to Observe for Impairmet Failure to Properly Give or Iterpret a Sobriety Test The secod class of factors ca cause the same failure ad lead to similar cosequeces. I this istace, a officer observes for sigs of impairmet but fails to properly give or iterpret a sobriety test (such as the Stadardized Field Sobriety Test or SFST) which will reveal sigs of impairmet. Failure to Process DWIs i a Timely Mamer. This failure ca occur whe delays occur i performig certai law eforcemet fuctios (Figure 4-3). As idicated above, a major cosequece is the removal of operatioal police officers (those who are ivolved directly i iterdictig suspected DWIs) too log from their o-the-road eforcemet activities. The most serious delays occur whe a officer is: waitig for support uits (for example, a tow truck or a breath testig va) to arrive at the scee of a stop or traffic crash believed to ivolve alcohol; travelig from the scee to a processig ceter, performig o-patrol officer duties at a processig ceter (for example, bookig a suspect ito jail); fillig out log ad repetitious data collectio forms at various stages of the process; ad "baby-sittig" a juveile suspect. Combiatios of these delays ca exted processig by as much as two to four hours. 57
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORC WEAT SYSTEIE Figure 4-3: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Arrest ad Process DWIs I a Timely Maer" Failure to Arrest ad Process DWis i a Timely Maer Log Waits for Log Time to Use of Patrol Tue-Cosumig Support Uits at Reach Processig Officers for No- Data Collectio Arrest Scee Facility Patrol Duties Procedures Adjudicatio Pertiet fiictioal area are Chargig DWIs; Obtaiig a Guilty Plea From DWls; a Covictig DWIs. Failure to Charge DWIs. The most obvious factor leadig to this failure is too few prosecutors to process the DWI caseload (Figure 4-4). The eed for more prosecutors ca be exacerbated by uecessary or iefciet processigprocedures which icrease the time for prosecutors to complete the chargig process. For example, ot permittig the uiform traffic ticket (UTT) provided by the arrestig officer to fuctio as a complait ca cause prosecutors to sped time i preparig a separate complait. The third major factor havig a egative ifluece o DWI chargig is isufficiet or iadmissable evidece. Isufficiet evidece might iclude a lack of proof that the suspect was actually drivig the subject vehicle or that a suspect's drivig performace was impaired by alcohol. Iadmissable evidece might iclude evidece obtaied without probable cause ad BAC test results obtaied with a improperly maitaied istrumet. Failure to Obtai a Guilty Plea from DWIs. This failure occurs i the pre-trial phase of adjudicatio ad ca result i a legtheig of the overall adjudicatio process ad eve i a dismissal whe the prosecutor's case is margial (Figure 4-5). The first factor leadig to this failure is simply defedats fail to appear at some poit durig pre-trial. Arrest warrats are usually issued whe this occurs, but the defedat may ever be foud. This is ofte exacerbated i jurisdictios ear state 58
SYSTF.MFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FIXES Figure 4-4: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Charge DWIs" Failure to Charge DWIs Too Few Posec utors to Process Caseload Uecessary or Iefficiet Processig Procedures Isufficiet or Iadmissable Evidece boudaries where may offeders are out-of-state residets ad the warrats oly appear i the computerized system of the state of arrest. Defedats who appear at arraigmet are usually offered the opportuity to plead guilty, but a plea will ot be offered or accepted by the court if the court believes that due process may be deied by the defedat's pleadig guilty. The result is too few guilty pleas at arraigmet. Other opportuities are available durig the pre-trial phase for a defedat to eter a guilty plea. Typically, such opportuities arise durig egotiatios occurrig i cojuctio with pre-trial hearigs. Whe there is afailure to egotiate a plea, adjudicatio will cotiue ito the trial phase. Two procedural elemets of the pre-trial phase, (1) pre-trial hearigs ad (2) requests for a cotiuace ca result i log delays i adjudicatio. Such delays occur whe there are, for several reasos to be discussed later, too may pre-trial hearigs ad too may cotiuaces. Fially, setecig practices that result i sactios that are less harsh tha coditios cotaied i ay plea that ca be offered by the prosecutio discourage defedats from acceptig a plea. Factors that ca lead to the impositio of tooleiet sactios are discussed below uder Failure to Impose Appropriate Sactios. Failure to Covict DWIs. This failure occurs i the adjudicatio or trial phase of the DWI eforcemet process (Figure 4-6). It ca cause a legtheig of the overall adjudicatio process ad, ultimately, the release without ay sactios of DWIs who should have bee covicted but were ot As with the prior hi lure, some defedats fail to appear durig the adjudicative proceedigs. Agai, arrest warrats are issued but may ot be acted upo because of, for example, too few officers to serve the wa at. Also, other deterrets for ot appearig (such as driver licese suspesio) may be lackig. The trial must be rescheduled if ad whe the defedat is foud. The result may be o covictio or a delayed covictio. 59
PROBLEACAND SOLOWNS INDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTE S Figure 4-5: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Obtai Guilty Plea From DWIs" a 60
SYSTEMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FAXES Figure 4-6: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Covict DWIs" Failure to Covict Guilty DWs No Testimoy or Defedats Fail to Critical Evidece Poor Testimoy Appear Not Admitted From a Key Mthess Iappropriate Not Guilty Verdicts Redered Aother factor cotributig to this failure is critical evidece ot admitted. Such evidece might iclude all evidece (if the stop were illegal), breath-alcohol test results, ad statemets made by the suspect durig questioig. No admissio of evidece may be the result of motios made by the defese durig pre-trial, but ca also occur whe the prosecutio attempts to itroduce testimoy or evidece durig the trial. No testimoy or poor testimoy from a key witess ca result i ot guilty verdicts ad a legtheig of adjudicatio. Iaccurate or icomplete accouts of evets precedig or durig the arrest process ca be seized upo by the defese to create a reasoable doubt of guilt. Examples are a officer's failure to describe the DWI drivig cues that led to the stop ad a failure to describe i detail the appearace or demeaor of the suspect after the stop. I DWI trials, the arrestig officer is usually the most critical witess. No testimoy from a officer results whe the officer caot appear because of other commitmets or does ot kow that a appearace is scheduled. Sometimes, a differet officer or employee admiistered the test, ad that perso may be the oe who is ot preset. Eve whe the prosecutio has apparetly prove guilt beyod a reasoable doubt, a iappropriate ot-guilty verdict may be redered. A failure of jury members (or the judge i bech trials) to uderstad or correctly iterpret the evidece or court rules uderlies such verdicts. Sactioig Fuctioal areas examied were: Imposig Appropriate Sactios; Executig Imposed Sactios; ad Upholdig Admiistrative Sactios. 61
PROBLE SAND SOLUT7ONSLV DWI ENFORCEMENT SYS7LV 5 Figure 4-7: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Impose Appropriate Sactios" W 62
SYSTEM FA ILURESAND SUGGESTED FIXES Failure tolmposeappropriate Sactios. Sactios that do ottake ito accout the characteristics ad backgroud of the offeder, the circumstace of the offese, ad available sactioig alteratives are ot likely to have the desired effect i reducig subsequet drikig-drivig. Lack of iformatio is a major factor cotributig to this failure (Figure 4-7). Such iformatio icludes iformatio about the offeder, icludig prior DWIs, prior sactios, biographical characteristics, ad drikig habits; iformatio about the offese, icludig how much alcohol impairmet ad drikig locatios; iformatio about available sactioig resources; ad iformatio about the causes ofdwl. It also icludes iformatio aboutthe effectiveess of available sactioig alteratives, which may cause a lack of cofidece or belief amog judges i the effectiveess of certai sactios. Of course, iformatio aloe will ot result i the impositio of appropriate sactios if a lack of sactioig resources limits available choices. The resources may be isufficiet both i umber of offeders that ca be served, ad i type of alteratives available. They ca rage fiom jail space to house offeders for the full legth of a setece, to treatmetprograms for alcoholism ad problem drikig, ad to more iovative alterative sactioig programs. The lack of uiformity i setecig across jurisdictios or amog idividual judges i a give jurisdictio ca result i sactios that are iappropriate ot oly for reducig drikig-drivig, but for esurig fudametal fairess as well. Setecig guidelies are ofte provided to judges to esure uiformity i setecig, but the guidelies themselves may be out of date or disregarded by judges ad ot eforced by court admiistrators. Fially, judges may simply give isufficiet attetio to setecig, imposig "caed" or ill-cosidered seteces odwi offeders. Overcrowded dockets or just a lack of uderstadig of the importace of the role of sactioig i reducig alcohol-related traffic crashes may uderlie this problem. Failure to Execute Imposed Sactios. This failure occurs whe appropriate sactios are imposed, but oe or more compoets of the setecig package are ot fulfilled (Figure 4-8). The failure may surface i two forms, the first beig o completio of the sactio (such as whe oly part of a jail term is completed). The secod form is completio of the term of a sactio without fulfillig the coditios of the setece (such as whe offeders fail to appear for a treatmet sessio or for a BAC test). The first factor leadig to this failure is a lack of sactioig resources, whe such a lack was ot take ito accout i imposig the setece i the first place. Here, eough space or staff to hold offeders for the full term of their setece does ot exist A secod factor is a mis allocatio ofsactioigresources, as might occur whe a disproportioate amout of resources is devoted to the treatmet compoet of a program for problem drikig as compared with the supervisio compoet of the program. 63
PROBLEWAND SQL UTIONS INDWI FIVFORCEMENT SYSTEMS Figure 4-8: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Execute Imposed Judicial Sactios" Failure to Execute Imposed Judicial Sactios Failure to Complete Sactio Failure to Comply With Terms of Setece Failure to Uphold Admiistrative Sactios. Admiistrative sactios limitig or removig drivig privileges are "automatic" i the sese that they are placed ito effect without adjudicatio uless appealed i a formal hearig (Figure 4-9). I may states, the police officer iitiatig the admiistrative actio is required to appear at such hearigs, ofte actig as a prosecutor opposig a legally-traied defese cousel. If the officer fails to appear for some reaso, the admiistrative sactio will ot be upheld. A similar result will occur.if the officer does appear but the officer's testimoy is ot effective. This may be due to a lack of legal traiig or to other reaso. Figure 4-9: Factors Cotributig to "Failure to Uphold Admiistrative Sactios" Failure to Uphold Admiistrative Sactios Officers' Testimoy I Hearigs Not Available or Ieffective No-Pertiet Issues Addressed at Hearigs Excessive Number of Appeals Erroeous Decisios by Hearig Officers Procedural errors i coductig the hearig may also lead to this failure. For example, the hearig officer may allow o pertiet issues to be addressed at the hearig, whethe oly really pertiet issues arewhetherthe driverwas drivigwith a illegally high BAC (for a per se law ifractio) or refused a valid request td take a BAC test. Based o testimoy addressig some o pertiet issue (for example, 64
SYSTEMFAILURFSAND SUGGESTED FIXES whether a Mirada warig was give), the hearig officer may arrive at a icorrect judgemet, ad i additio, the hearig may be exteded i time. Sometimes, o pertiet issues raised by the defese may be carried to the extreme, amoutig i effect to a discovery sessio for developig iformatio to be used later i judicial hearigs. This may result i may requests for a hearig, placig a strai o resources ad, because of problems i schedulig appearaces, icreasig the chaces that the police officer will ot appear at the hearig. Fially, as oted above, the decisio of the hearig officer may be icorrect due to a lack of uderstadig of the evidece or the law. SUGGESTED FIXES The prior sectio has idetified several failures i DWI eforcemet systems. This sectio isolates some causes of these failures ad suggests chages i system fuctios that will improve the performace of the system. Agai, this sectio is orgaized by the three top-level fuctios of a DWI eforcemet system whose processes are of cocer i this study, i.e., Eforcemet; Adjudicatio, ad Sactioig. Eforcemet Faihire to Fid DWI Suspects. The first failure i this class was idetified i the precedig sectio as too few police uits observig for DWI. The first major cause of this failure is a lack of fuds to support eeded uits (Figure 4-10). Such fuds are most commoly used to support special DWI eforcemet uits. Ofte, "seedmoey" grats are sought for this purpose, usually providig start-up fuds for a short time, say three years, ad the ceasig the fudig. Ufortuately, fudig after this period may ot be picked up by local jurisdictios that do ot have the moey for all "priority" programs, ad the uits are disbaded, reduced i size, or used less frequetly. Cotiuig grats are rarely available to provide ogoig support. Two fixes are suggested for this problem. First, DWI eforcemet should be "sold" to state ad local fudig agecies as a importat source of fuds that ca support ot oly DWI eforcemet but other eeds as well. The latter could iclude (1) catchig violators of other, o-dwi laws, (2) reducig the societal cost of traffic crashes (icludig the cost of fatalities ad ijuries, ad the cost of days lost from work), ad (3) makig the commuity safer ad more livable. NHTSA has bee recommedig so-called "self-sufficiecy" of DWI programs for may years, but may eedy jurisdictios have ot adopted it, possibly because of a lack of kowledge about how to go about establishig such a arragemet. NHTSA 65
PROBLEWAND SOLU77ONSINDWI FIVFORCFMF1V7 SYSTEMS Figure 4-10: Causes ad Fixes of "Too Few Uits Observig for DWI" Failure Too Few Uits Observig for DWIs --------------------------------------- -4- ---------------------------------- Causes Lack of Fuds to Support Needed Uits Lack of Commad Emphasis ------- ----i------ ---------- ----------------------- r---- ------------------------ Fixes Arrage to Trai Commad Obtai a Commad Staff Share of DWI i DWI Risk Reveue Use Private Cotractorsfor Some Fuctios Establish Prog- rams to Icrease GP Eforcemet regioal ad state offices ca help i this respect by providig assistace to jurisdictios i settig up self-sufficiecy programs i cojuctio with their seedmoey grats. It is importat that such advice be provided at the state or local level because of state laws that sometimes restrict the direct use of moey from traffic fies. Whe fies caot be used i ay way to support DWI eforcemet, assessig special fees o DWI offeders may be possible, such as makig the pay for their treatmet program. A secod suggested fix is to ivolve private cotractors i the DWI eforcemet process. For example, Los Ageles Couty, Califoria, is usig a cotractor to collect probatio costs ad restitutio awards from probatioers. The cotractor keeps part of the probatio cost (but ot restitutio), ad returs the remaider to the Couty. Variatios o this theme could be used to fud DWI eforcemet efforts (ot ecessarily limited to police fuctios) i other jurisdictios cosistet with local coditios. A secod cause of too few uits observig for: DWIs is a lack of emphasis of DWI by police commad staff. This problem is also related to a lack of fuds for eeded uits, where a ecessary portio of available fimds is ot allocated to special DWI uits. A obvious fix is to establish a traiig program for commad staff o the ature of the alcohol-crash problem ad the size of the risk it creates compared with that of other problems beig dealt with by law eforcemet. Such traiig 66
SYSTEM FAILURESAND SUGGESTED FA'F,S would ecourage commad staff to recosider their curret allocatio policies ad would also prepare them to respod better to public ad political pressures for policies that would de-emphasize DWI eforcemet. Lack of commad emphasis is maifested i a lack of eforcemet of BAC laws by geeral patrol (GP) uits. These uits follow commad policy i lookig for other law violatios that may be perceived by commad staff (or the public) to create higher risk. Thus, aother fix is to establish programs that would result i icreased eforcemet of BAC laws by GP uits. Such a program should iclude traiig for GP officers o the ature ad size of the alcohol-crash problem, ad o other pertiet aspects of DWI eforcemet, with emphasis o drivig behaviors associated with DWI. I additio, ad most importat, the program should icorporate a system of rewards for outstadig performace by GP persoel for DWI eforcemet. Such rewards might iclude a moetary bous ad time offfrom duty, ad a plaque or a framed certificate. Commuity orgaizatios ad busiesses could participate by offerig diers for officers ad their families, free passes to movies, etc. The secod failure i this class was a police officer's iability to recogize DWI drivig behavior. This problem is ot limited to GP officers but may also exist withi special DWI eforcemet uits. The primary cause is simply a lack of kowledge of DWI drivig behaviors, ad this ca easily be remedied by a traiig program that would iclude NHTSA's DWI detectio cues ad ride-alogs with officers skilled i DWI detectio (Figure 4-11). The ext failure was iefficiet or ieffective use of resources. I a failure to f id Figure 4-11: Cause ad Fix of "Iability to Recogize DWI Drivig Behavior" Failure IabBty to Recogke DWI Drivig Behavior Cause Lack of Kowledge of DIM Drivig Behavior Fur Traiig Progam i DWI Detectio 67
PROBLEIvISAND SOL U77ONS IN DWI FNFORCF.MEIVT SYSTEMS Figure 4-12: Causes ad Fixes of "Ieffective or Iefficiet Use of Resources" Failure Ieffective or Iefficiet Use of Resources ------------------------------------- -4- ---------------------------------- Causes No-use of Iefficiet Available Deploymet of Eforcemet Patrol Uits Strategies Fixes Base Deploy- Chage or met o Augmet Alcohol-Related Existig Crash Data Strategies DWIs, two causes are of cocer, iefciet deploymet ofpatrol uits ad o use of available eforcemet strategies (Figure 4-12). The suggested fix for the first cause is to use data o times ad locatios of alcohol-related crashes (ad other alcohol-related icidets, if available) to develop deploymet policies that will provide coverage to areas of greatest risk. I doig this, other areas of relatively low risk should ot be eglected, but should be provided some coverage to maitai a jurisdictio-wide deterret effect. The deploymet policy should be updated periodically, sice priorities may shift i respose to chagig drikig locatios ad drivig habits. With respect to the secod cause, we suggest that police agecies critically reexamie their existig BAC- law eforcemet strategies to ascertai which of them should be chaged ad whether ew strategies should be adopted. For example, a police agecy may rely exclusively o a "fishig hole" strategy that ivolves surveillace or periodic checkig of areas with late-ight drikig establishmets. Other areas i the agecy's jurisdictio may be left uatteded. A rovig sate atio patrol strategy i which several uits cover successively (ad radomly) various sectors should be cosidered to fill this gap. If the agecy does ot have the resources for this strategy, the the use sobriety checkpoits i cooperatio with other police agecies (such as a earby State Patrol post) should be cosidered, ad citize reportig of DWI icidets (especially i jurisdictios with large areas to cover) should be promoted. All these additioal strategies, combied 68
- S.YSTEMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FADS Figure 4-13: Causes ad Fixes of "Ieffective Use of Citize Reportig" Failure Ieffective Use of Citize Reportig Causes Report Not Haded Off to Proper Agecy Iability to Fid Suspect Vehicle ad Make a Lawful Stop Fixes Better Police Commuicatio System Program to Iform Citizes o Howto Respod with heavy media coverage, help create the perceptio of strog, jurisdictio-wide eforcemet of BAC laws ad by that ehace geeral deterrece of DWI. A fourth failure cotributig to failure to f id DWI suspects is the ieffective use of citize reports. This failure ca usually be traced to two differet causes (Figure 4-13). The first cause is that the report is ot haded off to the proper agecy because the citize observig possible DWI drivig behavior calls a police umber i a area i which the agecy does ot have jurisdictio. This problem ca be elimiated by havig a better regioal commuicatio system i which a citize ca call a sigle umber other tha 911 to report a complait. The commuicatio system should be able to otify the proper agecy for actio, ad the earest uit havig geographical jurisdictio ca be assiged. A secod cause of ieffective use of citize reportig is that the officer either caot fid the suspect vehicle or, havig foud it, does ot have sufficiet iformatio to make a lawful stop. A suggested fix is to set up a program of public iformatio advisig citizes o how best to respod to such a icidet. The citize should be ecouraged to stay with the suspect (if possible ad safe to do so) util a officer arrives, reportig to the dispatcher that, for example, that the officer is behid the suspect vehicle. The citize should also report a clear descriptio of the vehicle, its occupats, ad its maeuvers. Such iformatio will be useful to the officer i fidig the vehicle ad later durig adjudicatio eve if the citize does ot appear i court to testify. The fifth ad last failure i this group is too much time spet collectig data throughoutthe law-eforcemet fuctio. The obvious cause is time-cosumig ad 69
PROBLEMYAND SOLUTIONSINDWI F.NFORCEME%NT SYSTFMS iefficiet data collectio procedures (Figure 4-14). Ofte, multiple forms are used (sometimes te or more forms), each form cotaiig uecessary data items ad data items cotaied i other forms. Officers sped cosiderable time just copyig iformatio (such as ame, address, driver licese umber) from oe form to other forms. Sometimes, patrol officers are required to fill out the forms required for the bookig process or for other post arrest fuctios such as the coduct of chemical testig at police headquarters. All of this takes the officer off the road for too much time, time that could be spet observig for DWI violators. Sice may officers are frustrated by this task, it may provide a disicetive to make the arrest i the first place. The first fix is to reduce the umber of forms ad data items to those that are really ecessary, takig care to elimiate redudat ad repetitious data items. For most jurisdictios, o more tha four forms should be filled out by the arrestig officer: Uiform Traffic Ticket; Icidet Report (icludig probable cause elemets or affidavit, if required by law); Towed Vehicle Report; ad Admiistrative Licese Suspesio / Implied Coset Form. The icidet report has perhaps the most potetial for improvemet. It should be restricted to oe or two pages coverig: arrestee idetificatio; time, locatio, road coditio, ad ambiet coditios of the icidet; officer observatios of the arrestee ad the results of field sobriety tests; implied coset ad BAC test results; ad a short arrative cotaiig case otes o the details of all aspects of the icidet Furthertime savigs could be possible by improvig a agecy's existig maual system of data collectio. Particularly importat i this respect are improvemets that reduce the officer's ivolvemet i performig clerical fuctios. For example, a officer ca tape-record the iformatio required i the forms, ad the forms ca be filled i later by clerical staff Still larger reductios i time spet i data i"collectio ca be realized by developig a computerized DWI data system, possibly as a module of some existig crimial justice iformatio system. Software ca be provided that allows the forms to be displayed o the computer scree alog with drop-dow meus with possible values of categorical data items. The officer could the select values without ay key 70
SYSTFMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FAXES Figure 4-14: Cause ad Fixes of "Too Much Time Spet Collectig Data" Failure Too Much Time Spet Collectig Data Cause Time-Cosumig Data Collectio Procedures Fixes Reduce Number', Develop Develop of Forms ad Improved Computerized Data Items Maual System System strokig. This ca also reduce trascriptio errors caused by uclear hadwritig, ad ca provide a commo meas for commuicatig the same iformatio. Basic iformatio (e.g., driver licese umber) could be etered just oce ad used i other "reports" as eeded. For example, prosecutorial ad judicial agecies could dowload the iformatio eeded i adjudicatig DWI cases. Such software ca be quite sophisticated, allowig the locatio of a icidet to be poited to o a computerized map ad automatically trasferred to the form. The best hardware solutio for such a system would be persoal otebook computers assiged to each patrol officer, possibly tied ito a etwork providig access to other iformatio. A itermediate solutio might employ termials at a headquarters or post locatio that could be used for completig forms usig a officer's field otes. 21 Failure to Cofirm Suspects as DWI. The first failure i this class is failure to observe for sigs of alcohol impairmet. It is caused by either (1) a lack of kowledge of the sigs or (2) a lack of uderstadig of the importace of such sigs i prosecutig the case if a arrest is made (Figure 4-15). The ext failure of cocer here isfailure toproperly give or iterpret asobriety test. As i the prior failure to observe sigs of alcohol impairmet, the causes are a lack of kowledge of how to coduct a sobriety test ad a lack of uderstadig of the importace of the test (Figure 4-16). Agai, the fix is officef traiig. The graiig should focus o the Stadardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) developed by NHTSA. 71
PROBLEMS AND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTFJ f5 Figure 4-15: Causes ad Fix of "Failure to Observe for Sigs of Alcohol Impairmet" Failure Failure to Observe for Sigs of Alcohol Impairmet Cause Lack of Kowledge of Sigs Lack of Uderstadig of Importace Sigs Fbr Traiig i Sig of Alcohol Impairmet I Figure 4-16: Causes ad Fix of "Failure to Properly Give or Iterpret a Sobriety Test" Failure Failure to Properly Give or Iterpret a Sobriety Test Cause 1 Lack of Kowledge of Test Lack of Uderstadig of Importace Test Far Traiig i Sobriety Test 72
SYS'1FMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FIXES It should be required for all police officers ad should use a commo traiig package. All officers should be required to be certified i the SFST. If ecessary, officers should be paid overtime to atted the class. Agai, the course should stress the critical importace of sobriety testig i makig a DWI case. It should emphasize that the use of a portable breath testig device (PBT) is merely cofirmatory of impairmet ad ot the primary idicator of impairmet. Failure to Process DW7s i a TimelyMavmer. The first failure uderlyig this class of failures is log waits for support uits at the scee of a icidet. It may be traced to two causes, (1) ot havig eough support uits to service a DWI icidet, ad (2) ot usig all available support uits to provide services (Figure 4-17). I Figure 4-17: Causes ad Fixes of "Log Waits for Support Uits at Arrest Scee" Failure Log Waits for Support Uits at Arrest Scee Causes Too Few Support Uits All Available Support Uits Not Used Fires Provide More Uits Develop More Efficiet Allocatio Procedures priciple, the first cause ca be addressed simply by addig more support uits. However, this fix would oly apply to services cotrolled by some govermetal etity with the fuds or resources to provide the additioal uits. For example, if tow trucks were the problem ad city trucks were used, the more trucks would have to be purchased by the city. If trucks were provided by private cotractors, the arragemets would have to be made with the cotractors (or with more cotractors) to have more trucks stadig by for possible calls durig peak hours. A better solutio might be to address the secod cause ad develop more efficiet procedures for allocatig resources. For example, may police agecies have a policy of rotatig tow truck providers, usig compay "A" for, say, a week ad the switchig to compay "B" for the ext week, etc. This will leave gaps i coverage i areas ot ear to the locatios where the curret compay's trucks are operatig. 73
PROBLE SAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORC AdENT SYSTEW Adoptig a policy of dispatchig the earest truck regardless of compay would alleviate this problem. The policy could also icorporate a provisio allowig a suspect the optio of securig the vehicle ad leavig it at the scee whe a safe ad coveiet locatio exists for parkig the vehicle. A secod failure leadig to excessive DWI processig time occurs whe it takes a log time to trasport a suspect to a locatio for additioal processig (usually post arrest processig). This failure is caused by havig too few breath alcohol testig facilities (BATs) or jails available (Figure 4-18). Two fixes are suggested for this problem. First, a agecy could use a mobile BAT facility that would be called to the scee ad used for all post arrest processig, icludig breath testig, bookig, ad Figure 4-18: Causes ad Fixes of "Log Time to Reach Processig Facility" Failure Log Time to Reach Processig Facility Cause Too Few Facilities Available Fixes Use a Mobile Facility Use Strategically Located Sub- Statios trasport to a holdig facility.. A secod fix would be to have additioal BATs i police substatios scattered about the service area. I both fixes, the suspect would be haded off to a resposible officer i the mobile facility or at the substatio to complete the processig. A third failure is use of patrol officers for o patrol duties. Ay time spet by patrol officers o o patrol duties ca be deducted directly from the time they ca sped lookig for ad cofirmig DWI suspects. Patrol officers are assiged o patrol duties because of a lack of o patrol support staff or because existig staff is 74
SYSTFMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FADS Figure 4-19: Causes ad Fixes of "Use of Patrol Officers for No-Patrol Duties" Failure Use of Patrol Officers For No- Patrol Duties Causes Too Few Support Staff Mis-Assiged Support Staff Fixes Provide More Staff Re Assig Support Staff mis assiged ad do ot do more critical support duties (Figure 4-19). Additioal support staff would fix the first cause if the staff were used properly. For example, the staff could be used to operate BAT vas or less-equipped vehicles. Such vas or vehicles could be dispatched to the scee to trasport ad process a suspect after a stop ad iitial processig by a patrol officer. With respect to the mis assigmet of support staff we foud that patrol officers ofte perform several support duties simply because other available staff have ot bee assiged those duties. For example, it is commo for patrol officers to remai at a BAT statio, fillig i forms, helpig i bookig, ad eve accompayig a suspect to the jail or holdig facility. Clearly, these duties could be assiged to other staff already at the statio, releasig the patrol officer to his or her primary operatioal duties. The fourth ad last failure i this group is time-cosumig data collectio procedures. This failure ad its causes ad suggested fixes have. already bee discussed i coectio with Failure to Fid DWI Suspects (see page 69). Adjudicatio Failure to Charge DWIs. The first failure i this group is too few prosecutors to process the DWI caseload. It parallels the eforcemet failure too few uits observig for DWI discussed begiig o page 65, prevetig suspects' etry ito the adjudicatio subsystem of the DWI eforcemet system. As with the eforcemet failure, this adjudicatio failure is attributed primarily to two causes, a lack of fuds to support the required staff, ad a lack of maagemet emphasis of DWI (Figure 4-20). Some of the fixes suggested for the lack of fuds for eforcemet also apply here. These iclude sellig the eed to deal aggressively with the DWI 75
PROBLEIZSAND SOLMOMS INDWI ENFORCE EAT SYSTEMS Figure 4-20: Causes ad Fixes of "Too Few Prosecutors to Process DWI Caseload" Failure Too Few Prosecutors to Process DWI Caseload Causes Lack of Labk of Fuds to Maagemet Support Emphasis of Required Staff DWI ----- ----.-+---------------- --------------- -----^._.-----------------._ Fixes Arrage to Trai Obtai a Share Maagemet of DWI. Staff i DWI Reveues Risk problem to state ad local fudig agecies ad to the public, ad establishig "selfsufficiecy" programs for DWI offeders. The media ad advocacy groups should be called upo to help get support for operatig ad improvig this aspect of case processig. To remedy the lack. of maagemet emphasis of DWI, a jurisdictio could establish a traiig program for maagemet staff o the ature of the alcohol-crash problem ad the size of the risk it creates compared with that of other problems beig dealt with by prosecutors. As with the suggested program for eforcemet commad staff, the traiig would ecourage maagers to recosider their curret allocatio policies ad would prepare them to respod to pressures to de-emphasize DWL Aother failure leadig to DWI suspects ot beig charged for DWI is wmecessary or ief ciet chargigprocedures. Such procedures delay adjudicatio ad icrease stafftime ad resources eeded for chargig. The procedures are ofte the result of statutory ad regulatory requiremets, but may also arise withi a prosecutorial agecy i respose to some particular systemic problem (Figure 4-21). 76
SPSTFMFAILURFSAND SUGGESTED FAXES Figure 4-21: Causes ad Fixes of "Uecessary or Iefficiet Chargig Procedures" Failure Uecessary or Iefficiet Chargig Procedures Cause Couter- Productive Requiremets Fixes Routie Examiatio of Procedures ad Requiremets For example, legislatio required oe agecy to "validate" its uiform traffic tickets (which had bee used as the formal complait or accusatio) before filig with the court. The agecy's respose was to schedule a retreat for all deputy prosecutors oce a moth to clear up all of its complaits. The complaits were the "batched" ito the court which was the faced with a sudde "bump" i case flow ad attedat docketig problems. Specific fixes for problems of this type are hard to idetify because of the diversity of the problems. We ca oly offer the geeral recommedatio that prosecutorial agecies establish a policy of routie, periodic review of their procedures to esure that couterproductive chages have ot occurred or are beig cotemplated. The effect o chargig of ay proposed chages i procedures (due to legislatio or other factors) should be critically examied by agecy maagemet before beig adopted. Isufficiet oriadmissable evidece is the third failure resultig i o chargig of suspects. Here, we are alludig to a lack of essetial evidece or to grossly flawed evidece thatwould almost certaily result i dismissal or otherufavorable outcome i court. Examples are: ucertaity as to the driver of the suspect vehicle, margially low BAC readigs combied with a lack of other evidece of impaired drivig, use of a ucertified breath test operator, ad uavailability of key witesses to testify. There are two basic causes of this problem, (1) iadequate ivestigatio at the scee (especially whe a crash is ivolved), or later i support of case-preparatio 77
PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCEW-NT SYSTEMIS Figure 4-22: Causes ad Fixes of "Isufficiet or Iadmissable Evidece" Failure Causes Iadequate Ivestigatio Isufficiet or Iadmissable Evidece --------------------------------- Faulty SAC Equipmett or Uqualified Operators Fixes Traiig I DWI Ivestigatio Improved Procedures for Maiteace & Qualificatio by the prosecutor, ad (2) faulty breath testig equipmet or uqualified operators (Figure 4-22). The suggested fix for the first cause is to provide traiig i DWI ivestigative methods to police officers ad to ivestigators used by prosecutors: The proper use of ivestigative tools (such as videotapig, discussed o page 84) should be covered i the traiig. For the secod cause, we suggest `developig ad implemetig improved procedures for maitaiig breath-alcohol testig equipmet ad for esurig that equipmet operators are certified. With respect to certificatio, we recommed that all patrol officers be certified as operators, ad their certificatios be kept curret. Failure to Obtai Guilty Pleas from DWls. The first failure i this group occurs whe defedats fail to appear. The major cause of cocer here is the defedats' beliefthat they will ot be appreheded for ot appearig (Figure 4-23) ad will thus avoid ay sactio that might be imposed either for DWI or for failure to appear (FTA). The suggested fix is to put a system i place by which the state DMV will take actio agaist the driver's licese. I such a system, the DMV would be otified of the defedat's FTA, ad the FTA would appear o the defedat's drivig record. Also, defedats should be advised i advace o all otificatios to appear i court that failure to do so will result i a licese suspesio ad also a warrat for arrest o the separate charge of FTA. 78
S.YS'!FMFAIL URESAND SUGGESTED FLYES Figure 4-23: Causes ad Fixes of "Defedats Fail to Appear" Failure Defedats Fail to Appear Cause Belief that Sactios Will Be Avoided Fixes Have DMV Revoke Licese Figure 4-24: Causes ad Fixes of "Too Few Guilty Pleas at Arraigmet" Failure Too Few Guilty Pleas at Arraigmet Cause Belief that Due Process May be Deied Fixes Have Public Defeders Available at Arraimet Permit Guilty Plea to be Vacated Later 79
PROBLEIEAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCE EJVT SYSTEMS The ext failure is too few guilty pleas at arraigmet (Figure 4-24). This is likely to occur i jurisdictios i which judges believe that a suspect will, because of ot uderstadig the cosequeces of a guilty plea, be deied due process by eterig a guilty plea. I such istaces, a guilty plea will ot be accepted. Oe fix is to make sure that defedats who are fiacially uable to be represeted by cousel at arraigmet are offered the opportuity to cofer with a public defeder before pleadig. A secod fix is to give a suspect a chace to vacate his or her guilty plea later after coferrig with cousel. A third failure is a failure to egotiate a plea. This ca be caused by the prosecutor's lack of skill i egotiatig techiques. It ca also be caused by a prosecutor's iability to offer a acceptable plea bargai because of setecig practices that result i sactios that are less tough tha those that could be offered i a plea bargai (Figure 4-25). Traiig i egotiatig skills will help remedy the first cause. The secod cause is a sactioig issue that is addressed later. Figure 4-25: Causes ad Fixes of "Failure to Negotiate a Plea" Failure Failure to Negotiate a Plea Causes Lack of Negotiatig Skill Too Soft Sactios Fixes Traiig I Negotiatio Discussed Later i Sactioig Sectio The last failure is too may motios ad cotiuaces. Some defese attoreys will cotiue to file motios serially util they get a "hit," ad cotiuaces provide the defese the opportuity to delay closure ad by that icrease the chaces of such occurreces as the failure of a key witess to appear. The mai cause of this problem is a lack of judicial restrictios o motios ad cotiuaces (Figure 4-26). The fix for this cause is the establishmet of judicial rules (possibly at the state level) settig time limits for filig motios ad explicitly limitig the coditios uder which cotiuaces will be grated. "Weasel words" such as "if practical" ad "to the extet possible" should be avoided i such rules. It has also bee suggested that 80
SYSTEMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FIXES Figure 4-26: Causes ad Fixes of "Too May Motios ad Cotiuaces" Failure Too May Motios ad Cotiuaces Causes Ladc of Judicial Restictios Lack of Officer SIdII I Testifyig Lack of Detailed Record of Icidet FL Explicit Rules for Motios ad Cotiuaces Officer Traiig i Testifyig Improved Data Collectio Procedures chroic abusers of cotiuace privileges be dealt with by schedulig hearigs after ormal workig hours. I ay case, judicial toughess is required to move the proceedigs alog. Pre-trial motios are also sometimes geerated by a lack of officer skill i testifyig ad by the officers ot havig detailed facts athad describig the icidet. The fixes forthese causes are (1) traiig i testifyig ad (2) havig awell-prepared icidet report with a clear arrative of the icidet ad the circumstaces surroudig it. Failure to Covict DWIs. The first failure i this group, defedats fail to appear, has already bee discussed o page 78 i coectio with a failure to obtai guilty pleas from DWIs. The secod failure i this group, critical evidece ot admitted may be caused by iappropriate court procedures ad by iappropriate laws which might allow such evidece as the results of the horizotal gaze ystagmus (HGN) portio of the stadardized field sobriety test (SFST) to be excluded (Figure 4-27). Iappropriate courtprocedures could be corrected through judicial traiig of the type sposored by NHTSA ad coducted by the Natioal Judicial College at Reo, Nevada. This may ot always work, sice some judges may regress to their old habits after attedig courses. The, other remedies may have to be tried, such as "judge shoppig" by prosecutors (i large jurisdictios) ad the use of reporters from the ews media ad members of advocacy groups such as Mothers Agaist Druk Drivig to "court watch" heavily-biased judges. Havig state appellate courts establish the validity of evidece (such as HGNtestresults) through appeal is aother 81
PROBLEMS'AND SOLUTIONSINDWIFNFORCE'MFR SPSTFA& Figure 4-27: Causes ad Fixes of "Critical Evidece Not Admitted" Failure Critical Evidece Not Admitted Causes Iappropriate Court Procedures Iappropriate Laws Improper CoPectio of Evidece From Suspect Fc Judiaal Traiig Publiity Campaigs Traiig i Cotet ad Sequecig of Critical Evets Judge Shoppig Lobbyig H Court Watchig Appellate Court Ruligs possible fix for this problem. Whe the statutes themselves are the cause, efforts to ifluece legislators may be required, icludig publicity campaigs ad direct lobbyig by advocacy groups. The third cause of critical evidece ot beig admitted at trial is improper collectio of evidece from suspect. This occurs most frequetly whe the judge rules that the officer did ot have probable cause for the stop. It also may happe whe the rules regardig custodial questioig are violated ad suspects are questioed after a arrest but before beig give the Mirada warig. Fially, it may occur i cojuctio with the implied coset warig, whe the warig is give at such a time ad i such a maer that the suspect becomes cofused about rights to cousel ad about the cosequeces of refusig a BAC test. The fix is 82
SYSTFMFAILURFSAND SUGGESTED FDYFS officer traiig i observig for DWI cues ad i the proper sequecig of critical iteractios betwee the officer ad the suspect. The sequece should be: pre-arrest questioig arrest implied coset warig chemical testig Mirada warig post-arrest custodial questioig (if ay) The arrestig officer should keep a record of the times of these evets should the sequecig be questioed i court. The icidet report should provide a space for such data. It is also recommeded that a tape recorder be used durig trasport of the suspect to capture ay spotaeous remarks made by the suspect. A third failure leadig to a failure to covict DWIs is o testimoy or poor testimoy from a key witess (Figure 4-28). Usually the key witess will be the arrestig officer, ad the cause of ot obtaiig ay testimoy at allfrom the officer will usually be iefficiet schedulig of police officer appearaces i court'. This failure results i wasted time ad moey whe officers are required to appear i court oly to fid that the trial has bee postpoed. Or officers may be required to appear at proceedigs earlier tha they could occur, for example, appear i the morig whe jury selectio is scheduled ad wait util the afteroo for the trial. Aother possible result of poor schedulig is case dismissal whe a officer is ot otified of a appearace i time to atted. The fix is to (1) maitai a status of officers' scheduled court appearaces ad to (2) otify officers of that status. Oe way of doig this is to establish a procedure by which officers are scheduled by shift, ad subpoeas for court appearaces are issued immediately after the arrest ad delivered directly to the police agecy. The procedure could require the establishmetofacourt liaiso officer who would check daily with the court ad otify officers of the status of their appearaces. Poor testimoy from a key witess (agai, usually the arrestig officer) ca be due to a variety of factors. Oe such factor, a lack of officer skill i testifyig ad oficers ot havig detailed facts at had describig the icidet, was discussed previously o page 81 cocerig the problem of excessive umbers of pre-trial motios. Aother cause is a lack of skill or resources for collectig evidece. The obvious fix is to provide the eeded skills through traiig ad to get the eeded resources. 6 This problem is also mmutered at pre-trial hearigs where they are most troublesome due the umber ad lack of maagemet of such hearigs. 83
PROBLEMSAND SOLU7TONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYS7FS Figure 4-28: Causes ad Fixes of "No Testimoy or Poor Testimoy From a Key Witess" Failure No Testimoy or Poor Testimoy From a Key Witess Causes Scedulig of Officers i Lack of Sll arid Fa Testifyig Lack of Skill a Resources i Collectig Evidece Fixes Procedure for Schedulig ad Notifyig Officers Traxig i Testifyig Provide Traiig ad Resources i Key Areas L Improved Data Collectio Procedures A example illustratig priciples that apply to other deficiecies of this type is the use of videotapig to capture drivig behavior leadig to a stop, ad a suspect's behavior afterwards. We foud staff ivolved i eforcig ad adjudicatig BAC laws to be early uaimous i agreeig that such evidece ca be highly effective i a trial if the tapig is doe properly. The problem is that very ofte the tapes do ot show the subtle sigs of impairmet that ca be covicig to a jury or a judge (i a bech trial). To make them more effective requires proper placemet of the camera i the police vehicle (as close to the driver as possible) to obtai a perspective that will show the maeuvers of the suspect's vehicle with respect to road lae markers. If possible, the camera should be aimed such that the suspect's demeaor ad performace of field tests ca be clearly observed ad taped. Tapig of the suspect should be coducted as soo after the stop as possible before the suspect has time to gai cotrol ad "pull himself / herself together." The tape should be accompaied by a arrative descriptio of what is beig taped. Equipmet is a extremely importat to producig quality videotapes that will be covicig to a judge or jury. Police agecies should have stadards for equipmet used i videotapig. The stadards should be set by officers who use or have recetly used such equipmet i DWI eforcemet, rather tha by admiistra tors. As a rule, departmets should purchase the best equipmet available, takig 84
SYSTEMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FIBS care to iclude such features as a dual microphoe ad a couter for quickly fordig specific portios of a tape. The fourth ad last failure i this group is iappropriate ot-guilty verdict redered. As idicated previously, this failure is caused by jury members (or the judge i bech trials) failig to uderstad or iterpret the evidece or court rules correctly (Figure 4-29). Judicial traiig programs of the type discussed above ad public iformatio ad educatio programs are possible fixes for this problem. 'l Figure 4-29: Cause ad Fix of "Iappropriate Not Guilty Verdict Redered" Failure ' Iappropriate Not Guilty Verdict Redered Cause Failure of Jury o Judge to Uderstad Evidece / Rule Fix Judicial Traiig ad Public Iformatio Sactioig Failure to Impose Appropriate Sactios. Lack ofiformatio is the first failure i this group. It is caused, first, by the lack or iaccessibility of systems to provide iformatio about the offeder ad iformatio about sactioig resources. It ca also be caused by a lack of resources to help a judge i iterpretig available iformatio ad recommedig a sactioig package for a give offeder. Uderlyig these two factors is a lack of uderstadig by DWI eforcemet system maagers ad actors of (1) the role of sactioig i reducig alcohol-crash risk ad (2) the ecessity forhavig iformatio to fulfill that role. Alog with this, there will most likely be a lack of fiords for desigig ad operatig systems that ca provide the eeded iformatio (Figure 4-30). 85
PROBLE SAND SOLD IONSINDWl ENFORCEMENT SYSTE S Figure 4-30: Cause ad Fix of "Lack of Iformatio" Failure Lack of Ifomatio Cause Judges' Lack of Uderstadig of Iformatio Needs Fix. Judicial Semiars ad Ifomatio Dissemiatio Oe fix for icreasig kowledge about iformatio eeds is to provide semiars for judges (especially ewly-appoited orewly-elected judges) o the role of judges as the official sactioig authority of the DWI eforcemet system, ad the iformatio requiremets for that role. The semiars should be coducted at the state level ad iclude modules devoted to idetifyig existig iformatio resources ad gaps betwee existig resources ad eeded resources. Strategies ad programs for fillig these gaps should be idetified at the semiars, ad the status of prior attempts at gap-fillig should be reviewed. Research fidigs o the effectiveess of various sactios i reducig alcohol-crash risk should also be preseted at the semiars. Methods offiacig iformatio system developmet ad improvemet caot be specified here because of their depedece upo local coditios. I geeral, they might follow the same geeral approaches as discussed earlier i this report o page 65 cocerig eforcemet subsystem eeds. The secod failure i this group is a lack of sactioig resources such as jail space, treatmet programs for alcoholism ad problem drikig, ad alterative sactioig programs such as itesive supervisio probatio, electroic moitorig, igitio iterlock devices, ad vehicle sactios (Figure 4-31). The cause will agai be a lack uderstadig of the eedfor such resources ad a lack offuds toprovide them. Iitiatives such as those just discussed above are eeded to fix these deficiecies. 86
SYSTEMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FADS Figure 4-31: Cause ad Fix of "Lack of Sactioig Resources" Failure Lack of Sactioig Resources Cause Judges' Lack of Uderstadig of Resource Needs Fix Judicial Semiars ad Iformatio Dissemiatio The third failure is a lack of uiformity i setecig across jurisdictios or amog idividual judges i a jurisdictio (Figure 4-32). This is caused by a lack of ay eforceable, geeral rules idicafigwhich seteces areappropriatefor which classes of o eders. Rages of sactios specified i statutes or regulatios are ofte too wide for everyday use. Figure 4-32: Cause ad Fix of "Lack of Uiformity i Setecig" Failure Lack of Uiformity i Setecig Cause Lack of Practical Rules for Setecig Fix Authoritative, Eforceable Setecig Guidelies 87
PROBLF AND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTFJI To fix this problem, setecig guidelies should be promulgated (at the state level for states with statewide court systems) ad preseted to judges periodically at judicial cofereces ad i ewsletters published by court admiistrative offices. Meas for moitorig adherece to the guidelies should be icluded alog with provisios for eforcig the guidelies ad for keepig them up to date. The last failure i this group occurs whe judges give isufficiet attetio to setecig (Figure 4-33). The two causes of iterest here are (1) a lack of uderstadig of the importace of the role of sactioig i reducig alcoholrelated traffic crashes ad (2) overcrowded dockets. The first cause was discussed above. Figure 4-33: Cause ad Fix of "Isufficiet Attetio to Setecig" Failure Isufficiet Attetio to Setecig Causes Lack of Uderstadig of Importace of Sactios Overcrowded Dockets Fix Judicial Semiars ad Iformatio Dissemiatio There is o simple fix for the secod cause which may be the result of too may cases ad too few judges. We oted above that too may cases may be the result of overly-leiet setecig practices that cause defedats to opt for a trial rather tha accept a plea bargai that may require a harsher sactio. Judges must be made aware of this possibility through semiars, judicial cofereces, ewsletters, ad other media. Laws prohibitig plea bargaiig also cotribute to more cases goig to trial, makig it ecessary to advise legislators cotemplatig passig such a law that the law may have to provide for additioal judges. 4 88
SYSTFMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FLIES Failure to Execute Imposed Sactios. This class of failures occurs whe appropriate sactios are imposed, but oe or more compoets of the setecig package are ot fulfilled. The first failure i this class is failure to complete the term of the sactio (such as whe oly part of a jail term is completed). The secod failure is failure to fufill the coditios of the setece (such as whe offeders fail to appear for a treatmet sessio or a BAC test required as a coditio of probatio). As suggested o page 63, oe cause of both of these failures is a lack of sactioig resources, whe such a lack was ot take ito accout i imposig the setece i the first place (Figure 4-34). This failure ad a possible fix were discussed above. I lookig for ways to augmet existig resources, system maagers should cosider alteratives to curret high-cost sactios such as jail. Recet research suggests that sactios such as itesive supervisio probatio ad electroic moitorig ca be more effective i reducig recidivism for some classes of DWIs tha is jail. Ofte, the cost of operatig these sactios ca be bore by the offeders ad the facilities operated by private cotractors. Figure 4-34: Causes ad Fix of "Failure to Complete Term or Fulfill Coditios of Setece" Failure Failure to Complete Term or Fulfill Coditios of Setece Causes Lack of Sactioig Resources Misallocatio of Sactioig Resources Alterative Sactios Improved Maagemet ad Coordiatio A secod cause is a misallocatio of sactioig resources, for example, devotig too few resources to probatio supervisio ad too may resources to treatmet. This problem ca be fixed quite easily through stadard maagemet techiques whe the resources ivolved are uder the cotrol of a sigle agecy, for example, a probatio departmet that supervises cliets ad cotracts for treatmet services with private agecies. Ofte, though, the resources are operated by multiple agecies, for example, a state correctioal departmet for prisos ad a probatio departmet servig a particular court for supervisig probatioers. I these 89
PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI FNFORCEMFRf STSME istaces, coordiatig committees have to be established to arrive. at some compromise i resource allocatio. Such committees should meet regularly ad iclude i their ageda the cosideratio of ew sactioig alteratives of the types metioed above. Failure to Uphold Admiistrative Sactios. The first failure i this group is officer fails to appear or after appearig, the officer's testimoy is ot effective (Figure 4-35). The failure to appear will almost always be due to schedulig Figure 4-35: Causes ad Fix of "Police Officer Fails to Appear or Testify Effectively" Failure - - ------ - ------ - -------- - ------ Causes Fixes I Schedulig Problems Procedure for Schedulig ad Notifyig Officers Police Officer Fails to Appear or Testify Effectively Police Officer Lack of Skill or Facts for Testifyig -...j ------- --------------- ---- Traiig i Testifyig 1 Police Officer Must Act as Prosecutor Chage Law to Allow Prosecutors to Be Preset Icrease Notificatio Time Improved Data Collectio Procedures Remove Requiremet for Police to Appear Remove Requiremet for Wtitte Request for Cotiuace problems of the types oted o page 83 ad ca be addressed through fixes oted there. It ca also be dealt with by icreasig time betwee the otificatio to appear ad the appearace ad by removig ay requiremet that a officer file a writte motio for a cotiuace whe he or she caot appear. Ieffective testimoy is caused by a lack of officer skill i testifyig ad by officers ot havig detailed facts at had describig the icidet. As idicated o page 81, the fixes for these causes are (1) traiig i testifyig ad (2) havig a well 90
SYSTEA?FAILURESAND SUGGESTED FLED prepared icidet report with a clear arrative of the icidet ad the circumstaces surroudig it. Aother, perhaps eve more basic cause of ieffective testimoy, is the provisio i the laws of some states that prosecutors may ot appear at a hearig, placig the police officer i the role of prosecutor. This results i police officers who are ot legally traied beig pitted agaist a defedat who is represeted by a attorey. This lack of a "level playig field" is believed to cause more defedats to request admiistrative hearigs. I additio to chages i the law removig such restrictios o the prosecutio, a fix is to remove the requiremet (which may be statutory i some jurisdictios) for the police-officer to appear at all, with the hearig officer merely reviewig the paperwork ad havig the hearig tape-recorded. This could be supported by havig the officer's report swor ad otarized. Aother failure i this group is the hearig officer allowig o pertiet issues to be addressed at the hearig. Oe cause is hearig officers' lack of uderstadig of what makes up a valid issue (Figure 4-36). Oe fix is to trai police officers to be firm ad ot to aswer "discovery-type" questios that are beyod the scope of a admiistrative hearig. These officers should be traied ot to be reluctat to file a appeal whe such questios are asked. Police officers should always request a copy of the trascript of the hearig (ad other adjudicative hearigs) for use i court i a appeal. Aother fix is to require hearig officers to be legally traied ad/or to receive o-the-job-traiig i the details of their duties. Figure 4-36: Causes ad Fixes of "No-Pertiet Issues Addressed at Hearigs" Failure Causes I Hearig Officers Lack of Uderstadig of Valid Issues No-Pertiet Issues Addressed at Hearig I Laws that Allow Extraeous Issues to be Itroduced Fixes Police Officer Traiig I Testifyig at Admi. Heari L Legally Traied Hearig Officers or I-Service Traiig L Repeal of Such Laws 1 91
PROBLEMS AND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCEAMNT SPSTEA?S I Some states have laws that allow the issue of probable cause to be brought up at a admiistrative hearig. Actio should be udertake to repeal such laws ad thus keep hearigs admiistrative rather tha crimial i which probable cause is a recogized issue. Issues should be limited to whether the driver was drivig with a illegally high BAC (for a per se law ifractio) or refused a valid request to take a BAC test. A failure to uphold a admiistrative decisio may also occur whe the hearig officer arrives at a erroeous judgemet. This failure may also cause the hearig to be exteded i time ad result i more requests for a hearig (Figure 4-37). This failure is typically caused by a lack of kowledge of'the law, alcohol impairmet of drivig performace, techiques for determiig impairmet, or some combiatio of these. Agai, the fix is to require hearig officers to be legally traied ad/or to receive o-the-job-traiig i these areas. Figure 4-37: Cause ad Fix of "Hearig Officer Arrives at a Erroeous Judgemet" Failure Hearig Officer Arrives a a Erroeous Judgemet Cause Lack of Uderstadig of DWI-Related Issues Fix Legally Traied Hearig Officers or I-Service Traiig We close this discussio by observig that the; eforcemet of admiistrative licese suspesio laws is ot ruig as smoothly i some jurisdictios as thought. Because of umerous problems of the types oted above, officers i such jurisdictios believe that the laws are couterproductive ad just add to their burde by causig them to appear i adjudicative proceedigs more ofte, icludig two types of admiistrative hearigs (implied coset ad admiistrative per se) ad three types of judicial proceedigs (arraigmet, pre-trial hearig, ad trial). This i tur, leaves them less time to perform their operatioal fuctios of fidig ad iterdictig DWI violators. For these reasos, police officers i oe jurisdictio we studied have stopped processig admiistrative ifractios altogether ad ow 92
SYS7FMFAILURESAND SUGGESTEDFLTES cocetrate their efforts o crimial law violatios related to alcohol-impaired drivig. IMPLEMENTATION OF SYSTEM FIXES Implemetig some of the above fixes ca more difficult tha may be implied. I particular, their implicatios for the overall DWI eforcemet system eed to be take ito accout before virtually ay of them is udertake. A chage i the operatio i oe area of the DWI eforcemet system may have uaticipated egative cosequeces elsewhere i the system uless a system-wide perspective is take whe cosiderig such a chage. Whe such a view is take, appropriate decisio makers i other compoets of the system may eed to be brought ito the discussio ad potetial problems idetified ad preveted. A exampleis streamliig the paperworkrequiremets forthe arrestig officers. The root impetus for this fix is to speed the processig time at the time of the arrest ad thus allow the officer to retur to patrol more quickly ad resume searchig for other DWI offeders. Thus, the most basic mechaical beefit of this fix is more patrol time. Officers ofte fid the paperwork requiremets of processig a DWI arrest arduous, ad this acts as a disicetive to makig DWI arrests i the first place. The iteded cosequeces of makig the arrest processig time briefer ad paperwork requiremets less arduous are more patrol time ad a lesseed disicetive to makig DWI arrests -- resultig i more DWI arrests. However, at the frot ed, if the streamliig ivolves elimiatig some forms, oe must examie the reasos the forms existed i the fast place. Some may be required by statute, ad elimiatig them at the local level may be difficult. Some that serve more local eeds may have bee iitiated by other compoets of the system such as the prosecutor or judiciary. Obviously, ay potetial chages must be coordiated with these other actors i the system. Iroically, a form that creates a additioal burde for the arrestig officer may have bee created to make processig easier for the prosecutor or clerk of court Coordiatio with them could result i a cosolidated form that meets each compoet's eeds without creatig ew burdes o others. Additioally, if the fudametal purpose of the fix is achieved, i.e., more patrol time ad thus more DWI arrests, there are further implicatios for the overall system. Ca the prosecutors, courts ad sactioig compoets of the system hadle the additioal caseload geerated by additioal DWI arrests? For that matter will the police be able to accommodate the additioal court time required to prosecute these offeders? Ad, if additioal resources are required, will fudig sources ad the public be willig to support the allocatio of additioal resources to the DWI eforcemet system? These questios must be aswered before embarkig o ay program of chage. I summary, whe cosiderig implemetig a solutio to a specific problem withi the DWI eforcemet system, oe must take ito accout: 93
PROBLEAZSAND SOLOWNS INDWI EVFOROFMENPSYSTFJvIS the requiremets imposed by the laws that are beig eforced ad by legal costraits such as probable cause; the implicatios of the fix for other compoets of the system; higher order effects of the fix o the compoet beig fixed; the resources required to implemet the fix; ad the potetial eed for public support. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A umber of failures i DWI eforcemet systems were idetified ad traced to their causes. The failures ca occur i all three of the top level fuctios of the system, ad ca result i reduced system performace. Whe they occur, they degrade the ability of the eforcemet subsystem to fid DWI suspects, cofirm suspects as DWI, ad process DWIs i a timely maer. The failures also degrade the performace of the adjudicatio ad sactioig subsystems i chargig, obtaiig guilty pleas, covictig, ad sactioig DWIs. Suggested fixes for these failures fall ito the followig categories: expaded traiig; ew or modified procedures; additioal equipmet, facilities, ad persoel; additioal fudig; ew or modified laws; ad focused public iformatio programs. Expaded traiig cosists of tailored traiig programs for police officers, prosecutors, judges, ad admiistrative hearig officers. Depedig o the eeds of a jurisdictio, the traiig programs should address the followig areas: ature ad size of the alcohol-crash problem atioally ad locally, DWI drivig cues, proper sequecig of critical iteractios betwee the officer ad the suspect, observable sigs of alcohol impairmet, field sobriety testig usig the stadardized field sobriety test (SFST), evidetiary breath alcohol testig, ad DWI ivestigative methods. I additio, we suggest that specialized traiig be provided to police officers i testifyig i judicial ad admiistrative hearigs, ad to prosecutors i egotiatig techiques for developig pleas i arraigmets ad pre-trial hearigs. Judges should participate i specialized judicial traiig courses of the type sposored by NHTSA ad coducted by the Natioal Judicial College at Reo, Nevada. The 94
SYSTEMFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FIXES judicial traiig should iclude uits o the characteristics of DWI offeders ad the selectio of appropriate sactios for such offeders. New or modifiedprocedures may be eeded i all phases of DWI eforcemet. I particular, procedures are eeded to: deploy patrol uits more effectively, adopt more productive eforcemet strategies, reduce the umber of forms ad data items used by police i documetig iteractios with suspects, use clerical staff istead of patrol officers for support fuctios such as completig forms, establish ad operate a system of rewards for outstadig DWI perforce by geeral patrol officers, make better use of existig eforcemet support resources (e.g., tow trucks), have routie, periodic review of operatig procedures of all subsystems, better maitai BAT equipmet, certify all patrol officers as BAT operators, require the state DMV take actio agaist the driver licese of defedats who fail to appear at adjudicative proceedigs, esure that all defedats are offered the opportuity to cofer with a public defeder before pleadig, give a suspect a chace to vacate a guilty plea after coferrig with cousel, provide judicial rules settig time limits for filig motios ad limitig the coditios for cotiuaces, schedule hearigs after ormal workig hours to discourage filig of cotiuaces, have state appellate courts establish the validity of SFST evidece through appeal, have a court liaiso officer check daily with the court ad otify officers of their appearace status, establish setecig guidelies ad preset them periodically to judges at judicial cofereces ad i ewsletters, ad icrease the otice give to police officers of their appearace i admiistrative hearigs. Additioal equipmet, facilities, ad persoel may be eeded i some jurisdictios to improve performace ad efficiecy. Resources that are especially critical ad may require augmetig are: mobile BAT facilities, BATs i police substatios, computerized DWI iformatio system for all system activity, high-quality videotapig equipmet, ad 95
PROBLFJt& AND SOLUTIONSINDWI FNFORCF1vMNT SYSTEMS persoel as eeded for selected, uderstaffed fuctios. I additio, there is a cotiuig eed for improvemets to the equipmet itself. For example, curret BAT devices require a 20 miute waitig period to clear mouth alcohol from a suspect. New techologies are eeded to elimiate this eed ad thus further reduce suspect processig time. Additioal fudig is eeded to support operatios i early all jurisdictios. Suggested strategies for obtaiig such fudig are: use of self-sufficiecy iitiatives (such as havig the offeder pay the cost of a program) to fiace additioal resources, use of private cotractors to reduce cost of curret operatios, sellig the eed to deal aggressively with the DWI problem to state ad local fudig agecies, use of media ad advocacy groups to help get support for additioal fimdig, ad coordiatig committees to arrive at ay ecessary compromises amog govermetal agecies i allocatig resources. Some provisios of statutes ad regulatios are iadequate or may create problems for the DWI eforcemet system i some jurisdictios. These laws prohibit behavior that creates risk, ad provide for the operatio of the system. Desirable provisios that may require ew laws or modificatios to existig laws are: permit SFST results as evidece, allow prosecutors to appear at a admiistrative hearig, do ot require police officers to appear at a admiistrative hearig, ad do ot permit crimial procedures to be followed i admiistrative hearigs. Fially, a widespread eed exists for focused public iformatio programs to gai public support for the operatio of the DWI eforcemet system. Topics that eed addressig i such programs are: the ature ad size of the alcohol-crash problem, resource eeds of the BAC-law eforcemet system, eed for ew or revised laws dealig with DWI, ad advice to citizes o how best to respod to observatio of DWI drivig. Clearly, ot all jurisdictios require all these remedies, ad some fortuate jurisdictios may require oe. Agecies of local DWI eforcemet systems eed periodically to examie their total operatios to idetify failures ad to fid out which, if ay, of the fixes suggested i this chapter, could be applied. Iter-agecy 96
SYS71MFAILURESAND SUGGESTED FLMS coordiatig committees ofthe type alluded to i this chapter are oe mechaism for examiig failures ad fixes o a system-wide basis. 97
5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS We coclude that DWI eforcemet i most jurisdictios is fuctioig at a acceptable, if ot optimal, level, ad is fuctioig extremely well i some jurisdictios. Specific coclusios ad recommedatios flowig from this project are: Coclusio: The greatest improvemet i DWI eforcemet i most jurisdictios will be realized by icreasig the percetage of patrol officers' time available for lookig for ad iterdictig DWI suspects. However, all ivolved agecies must be prepared to adapt to the greater demads o their resources (for example, larger case loads) resultig from such icreases. Recommedatio: Police commad staff should recosider their policies for allocatig persoel ad other resources to esure that sufficiet emphasis is beig give to DWI eforcemet. Police maagers should examie each support fuctio performed by patrol officers to see how arrest ad processig time ca be reduced. The possibility of reducig the time spet fulfillig reportig requiremets should also be cosidered. The use of shorteed forms ad computer techology is oe of the most productive ways of icreasig officer availability for patrol tasks. Aother way of icreasig patrol time is to assig support duties durig suspect processig to clerical staff or other o swor persoel. Coclusio: The time required to adjudicate drivig while itoxicated (DWI) cases is excessive i may jurisdictios, ofte stretchig out for moths ad, sometimes, for years. This violates a basic teet of deterrece theory that calls for the timely impositio of puishmet for proscribed behavior. Recommedatio: Judicial agecies should examie their procedures to lear where iordiate amouts of time are beig spet. Particular attetio should be give to the parts of the process that ivolve pre-trial hearigs ad cotiuaces. There should be a eye toward restrictig the coditios uder which the process ca be exteded i time. Coclusio: The failure to appear (FTA) by defedats at adjudicative hearigs ca have a large egative impact o system performace by reducig their availability for determiatio of guilt ad sactioig if foud guilty. The extet 99
PROBLEVJSAND SOLUTIONS IN1 7ENFORCE VT SYSTF. & of this problem atiowide is ot kow, but our research suggests that it could be widespread. Recommedatio: Jurisdictios should udertake research to lear the ature ad extet of their FTA problem. If the problem is serious, the ways of dealig with it should be devised, icludig the revocatio of the driver licese for FTA. Coclusio: A series ofuexpected problems is occurrig i the operatio ofthe admiistrative adjudicatio compoets of DWI eforcemet. These problems iclude excessive demads o police officers' time to appear at admiistrative hearigs; procedures that require police officers to file a writte request for cotiuace if uable to appear at a hearig; laws that prohibit a prosecutor from appearig ata hearig, placig the police officer i the role of prosecutor, hearig officers allowig o pertiet issues to be addressed at the hearig; ad hearig officers' lack of kowledge of the law, alcohol impairmet of drivig performace, techiques for determiig impairmet, or some combiatio of these. These problems are causig the process to be avoided by police officers i some jurisdictios. Thus, the iteded admiistrative sactios are avoided by violators. Recommedatio: The requiremet for police officers to appear at admiistrative hearigs, schedulig of officers athearigs, qualificatios of hearig officers, ad pertiet issues that may be addressed at hearigs should be examied. Coclusio: Judges eed more iformatio o offeder characteristics ad sactioig alteratives to develop effective setecig packages. Recommedatio: Judges should be provided iformatio o offeder characteristics ad sactioig alteratives for use i setecig. Setecig guidelies forviolatios oflaws regardig alcohol-related drivig should also be provided. Research fidigs o the effectiveess of sactios for DWI eed to be dissemiated to judges i a easy-to-use format. Coclusio: Public support for DWI eforcemet is critical to maitaiig a acceptable level of performace. Recommedatio: Commuities should develop ad carry out public iformatio programs o the ature ad extet of the alcohol-crash problem locally, ad o resources ad legislatio eeded for eforcig BAC laws. 100
CONCLUSIONS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS Coclusio: The itroductio of laws limitig the BAC of various categories of drivers may ot be havig ay serious impact o DWI eforcemet Specifically, laws settig the BAC limit at 0.08 has. had little affect o the fuctioig of agecies ivolved i DWI eforcemet I states havig so-called "zerotolerace" laws for uderage drivers, isufficiet iformatio existed durig this project to determie whether these laws are creatig difficulties or are ot achievig their iteded results. However, limited data suggest that there are problems i processig juveiles suspected of violatig zero tolerace laws, particularly i trasportig ad holdig such suspects. Recommedatio: More research o the ature, provisios, ad impact of zero tolerace laws should be coducted. NHTSA is ow examiig zero-tolerace laws ad their applicatio for youth. This should help fill this gap. 101
6 - REFERENCES Joes, RK.; ad Joscely, K.B. 1976. A systems approach to the aalysis of trasportatio law. Trasportatio Law Joural 8(1-2):71-89. Joscely, K.B. ad Joes, RK. 1981. Maagig the traffic crash risk. The Uiversity of Michiga Highway Safety Research Istitute report o. UM HSRI-81-51. A Arbor, MI: The Uiversity of Michiga Highway Safety Research Istitute. Joes, R.K.; Joscely, KB.; ad McNair, J.W. 1979. Desigig a health/legal system: A maual. Fial report Washigto, DC: Natioal Highway Traffic Safety Admiistratio. 103
APPENDIX - SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS This appedix cotais descriptios of DWI eforcemet procedures for eleve jurisdictios based o telephoe discussios with police officers ad prosecutors. The iformatio captured was used i cojuctio with other iformatio to formulate the baselie system described i the report. We ask readers to ote that laws i some states have chaged sice the discussios. Also, the acroyms "DWI" ad "DUI" are used throughout this appedix, depedig o which term was i use at each site. Readers should also ote that the iformatio preseted here reflects the opiios ad attitudes of those who were cotacted, ofte expressed i their ow words. We have made o attempt to obtai ay cofirmatio from other sources or from separate studies. The large amout of paperwork ad processig time required for DWI arrests remai the biggest problem for police officers cotacted. Officers almost everywhere complaied of the complicated process ad the eed for documetatio of miute details of each case. This level of detail is apparetly ecessary i may locatios to "cover all of the bases" should the officer be required to testify at a admiistrative or court hearig. Some areas have plaed DWI eforcemet with both police ad states attoreys preset so that procedures hold up i court. We also heard about streamliig the arrest process by releasig suspects directly from a checkpoit site, rather tha trasportig suspects to jail or police headquarters for processig; this is doe uder striget guidelies approved by the courts. Also, at oe site, whe a case is dropped, officers are otified ad memos are writte to admiistratio to poit out what has happeed ad the reasos. Specially traied ati-dwi eforcemet officers have resulted i icreased arrest rates i some areas. Because geeral patrol officers ca call for specially traied officers to hadle arrests ad processig of DWI suspects, they are willig to apprehed moredwi suspects. Also, the specialized officers will testify ifecessary which, reportedly, ca be a itimidatig process for officers ufamiliar with the ofte complicated DWI adjudicatio process. A less experieced officer who has spet hours o the witess stad "o a simple DWI case who is beig questioed by a good defese attorey is afraid; they do't wat to go through that experiece agai." If the suspect is a multiple offeder, or has a good attorey, the attorey will badger the officer to the poit where "you are lookig at your whole credibility goig out the widow, ad you're tryig to fight just to tell them what you saw." Most times policies ad procedures are i place for officers to follow whe hadlig DWI suspects, but officers have told us they do ot always follow procedures. Specialized ati-dwi eforcemet officers ofte recommed additioal traiig for all officers to aid i the detectio ad processig of DWI suspects ad to stress proper procedures. I several istaces we heard about police officers who 105
PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYS7FASS do ot wat to hadle suspects; "they'd just as soo if they see oe they thik is druk, tur...to get away from it...if we had every officer who was o the ball lookig ad would follow his isticts oduis, we'd probably have twice as may DUI arrests." Aother officer would like to see atiowide certified traiig i DWI detectio ad arrest procedures. He discussed how traiig at Northwester Uiversity Traffic Istitute is highly recogized i courts ad thiks if ati-dwi traiig ca be raised to the same level, it would cut dow o court time ad save moey spet o cases. "Block traiig" programs were discussed i several locatios as a solutio to scarce fuds for traiig. Officers are set to formal traiig programs ad the retur ad trai other officers i the departmet who did ot atted. Admiistrative hearigs are problematic i several areas because defese attoreys use these hearigs as a source for fidig out details about the case which help them decide the most beeficial way to hadle the case i judicial proceedigs. These hearigs ofte do ot focus o their iteded purpose, which is whether the driver licese suspesio will stad or fall, but istead have become "free depositios" requirig substatial amouts of the officers' time. Ad there are o prosecutors preset to advise the officers. Several prosecutors we talked with were overwhelmed with DWI cases (1,200 1,300 per year) o top of other types of cases. The most recet tred has bee to add more police officers, but ot more judges, court rooms, prosecutors or public defeders. "You just ca't tiker with oe aspect of the system. You just ca't add cops ad thik problems will get better, they will get worse. The, there are more cases which get lost..." Prosecutors believe that there eeds-to be more ad better commuicatio betwee the law eforcemet admiistrators ad the district attorey's ad prosecutor's offices as to what is eforced ad how. Otherwise, "a buch of cases come i which are questioable i that they might ot follow state statute, which meas it might ot be possible to prosecute successfully, resultig i lost or dismissed cases" which agers the cops ad possibly the public. Or it seds a message that someoe ca get away with that particular offese. At these sites, it is also difficult if ot impossible to fid the time to properly prepare for a case. Ad, fially, there are sites where a sigificat umber of idividuals arrested for DWI disappear ad their cases are ot resolved. This is a problem which eeds to be addressed. Followig are the highlights of the discussios, separated by site. 106
SALINAS, CALIFORNIA SUAIM4RY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS Departmet Size. 142 officers at time of cotact, authorized for 151 officers. State Laws. BAC limits are 0.08 for adults, 0.05 for juveiles uder 21. There is a zero tolerace law for juveiles uder 21 which reads if ay alcohol is detected i a juveile's system (eve 0.01), admiistrative actio will betake; the juveile stads to lose his or her licese for oe year. But the BAC level must be 0.05 or greater for a charge of DUI. Traiig. All Salias police officers are traied idui detectio cues. I Califoria, police academy traiig curretly icludes operatio of the BAT, ad most Salias police officers are certified by the State of Califoria, Departmet of Justice as BAT operators. Eforcemet ad Apprehesio. Special Operatios hadles specific DUI eforcemet usig movig surveillace; oly statioary whe coductig checkpoits. They do ot target establishmets (e.g., sit outside of bars i parkig lots). A state Office of Safety gratfuds saturatio patrols ad periodic checkpoits. Oce a moth a DUI checkpoit is coducted at a locatio withi the city chose at radom, geerally from about 8:00 p.m. to midight Afterwards, officers staffig the checkpoits are o saturatio patrols util 3:00 a.m. The dates of the checkpoits are publicized, but ot the locatios. The other weekeds, saturatio patrols (three marked police cars, 2 officers per car) drive radomly throughout the city with o specified boudaries. Geeral patrol officers also watch for DUI suspects. At crash scees, officers always check for possible alcohol ivolvemet A typical DUI ivestigatio begis whe officers first detect either drivig that is erratic or ivolves a ifractio of the vehicle code. Officers ofte use basic vehicle code ifractios as the cause for the stop. Formal policy allows for pursuit oly with serious crimes (icludes DUI). The pursuig officer must have reaso to begi a pursuit, must be aware of existig street coditios (e.g., persos, vehicles, weather, time of day), ad the ature of the crime. All of this iformatio is recorded whe a pursuit begis ad is moitored by a Field Supervisor, a Sergeat, ad the Watch Commader. The pursuit ca be termiated by ay of these idividuals (or by the officer who bega the pursuit) if ayoe determies risks are too great There are o computers i the patrol cars. Havig just received a video camera, there are plas to record drivig history, the stop, field sobriety tests, ad ay subsequet 107
PROBL&VEAND SOLUTIONS INDWI ENFORCEMENT SYS7EW arrests. While followig a DUI suspect, officers radio i pertiet iformatio before makig a stop. Field Ivestigatio. After the stop, the officer approaches the vehicle ad requests iformatio o the driver's licese ad vehicle registratio which puts the officer i close eough cotact to make a determiatio about the presece of alcohol. Whe a stop is suspected of beig DUI related, the officer radios for a secod uit. After the secod uit arrives, the driver is asked to step out of the car ad proceed to a safe area. The secod officer is there as a safety factor to assist the fast officer i case the perso becomes belligeret, or passegers or others try to get ivolved. A series of questios are asked which may eforce the officer's suspicios that the driver has bee drikig. If so, the driver is iformed that the officer believes alcohol has bee cosumed ad that the driver is resposible for takig a series of field sobriety tests (FSTs). The secod officer witesses the FSTs. The FSTs are stadardized ad appear o a preprited form which is followed from the time the officer begis to admiister the tests through either a arrest or the perso is released. The same tests are admiistered i the same order to every perso suspected of DUL The perso's capabilities i performig the tests determie if the DUI ivestigatio eeds to cotiue. If the idividual performs poorly o the FSTs, the the PAS (passive alcohol sesors) testers or the flashlight siffers may be used to cofirm the presece of alcohol i the breath (but the testers may ot be used before the FSTs have bee completed). Arrest ad Trasport Violator. The suspect is arrested at the scee, hadcuffed, ad drive by the arrestig officer back to the statio. Use of a "paddy wago" ca be arraged for checkpoits. The backup officer will begi "tow procedures." I Califoria, if you are drivig a vehicle ad are arrested from that vehicle, the vehicle may be towed ad stored. This is a safeguard to the arrestee that the car ot remai out o the street The arrestee may be allowed to leave the vehicle legally parked if the arrestee sigs a form releasig the police from ay resposibility for the vehicle; this reportedly does ot happe ofte. Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig. At the statio, the arrestee is photographed, figer prited ad allowed to choose which test to take (blood, breath or urie). There is a cite-ad-release policy; if the perso is cooperative ad has o other basis for arrest (o outstadig warrats or other charges to be filed), ad there is a resposible adult (family member or fried who is sober ad ca take charge of the perso), the they will cite the idividual out with a appearace date, meaig the idividual does ot iitially sped aytime i jail. I this case, the time before the iitial arraigmet date i court is typically 10-14 days from the arrest ad is prited o the back of the form. If a resposible adult caot be located, the DUI suspect is take to couty jail. I this case, the perso has a right to arraigmet 108
SUMWARP OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS withi so may hours of arrest, geerally withi 2 days of the arrest date. If the perso bails out, that date will be further i the future. At the iitial arraigmet the charges are read ad the perso either accepts the charges ad pleads guilty or pleads ot guilty ad appropriate court appearaces ad dates are assiged accordigly. Arrest ad Processig Time. For a typical DUI case, a officer usually speds two hours arrestig ad processig the DUI suspect. I additio to the primary DUI form, which lists field sobriety tests, etc., the other forms which might eed to be completed iclude evidece forms, tow paperwork, arrest charges i additio to the DUI charge, ad a arrest report. Prosecutio Support. Not a lot of people request admiistrative hearigs, so officers do ot sped a great deal of time at hearigs. Each hearig requires uder a hour of a officer's time. For the few DUI cases which proceed to trial, officers sped approximately oe hour per trial preparig the case with prosecutors. At trial, the officers testify why the iitial stop was made (easy because ay ifractio is cause for a stop), that the perso o trial was drivig that vehicle o that date, the reaso to suspect alcohol was ivolved (e.g., the officer detected a odor of alcohol) which led to the FSTs which the perso failed, leadig to the BAC test. Hadlig Juveile Cases. If a juveile is arrested at a checkpoit, officers will sped a "great amout of time" attemptig to locate a resposible adult. If oe caot be foud, the juveile will be housed at juveile hall. If a juveile has bee foud drivig with a BAC of 0.01 or 0.02 the admiistratively, uder the.zero tolerace law, they begi the process of the licese suspesio. The paperwork goes ito the Departmet of Motor Vehicles who otifies the juveile of the pedig actio ad asks if the juveile is goig to cotest the actio. If the juveile does othig withi a certai period of time, the licese is suspeded. If the juveile requests a hearig, the officer must go ad testify. Commets. Noe. 109
PROBLEMSAND SOLUITONSINDWI FNFORCEAENT SYSTEMS SAN GABRIEL, CALIFORNIA Departmet Size. 59 officers at time of cotact. State Laws. BAC limits are 0.08 for adults, 0.05 for juveiles uder 21. There is a zero tolerace law for juveiles uder 21 which reads if ay alcohol is detected i a juveile's system (eve 0.01), admiistrative actiowill betake, the juveile stads to lose his or her licese for oe year. But the BAC level must be 0.05 or greater for a charge of DUI. Traiig. There is o formal departmetal policy which outlies DUI traiig for the officers. There are very geeral policies. All officers have atteded classes o DUI detectio ad had i service traiig. The officers have betwee 8-30 years of police experiece. The four officers i the traffic divisio have atteded classes o recogizig sigs of substace abuse; oe officer is a certified drug recogitio expert (DRE). The traffic divisio officers would look to see if the pupils are pipoited revealig possible opium use, or completely dilated revealig possible marijuaa or other drug use. The DRE expert does a little more thorough examiatio. Reportedly whe the drug tests come back, the DRE expert is usually right o the diagosis or very close, especially i the usage of combiatios of drugs ad/or alcohol. Eforcemet ad Apprehesio. The Califoria Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provided fudig i 1994-1995 ad i fact those fuds were used to start the traffic program. The fudig required the traffic divisio to coduct mothly checkpoits. Prior to the fudig there had bee o motorcycle officers i over 22 years ad o traffic uit, oly oe traffic ivestigator. That OTS fudig has eded but they cotiue to hold the checkpoits or have DUI rovig teams. The traffic divisio specializes i DUI eforcemet, although geeral patrol officers are o the lookout for druk drivers also. Traffic officers hadle 90% of crash ivestigatios withi the city, ay special evets, ad ati-dui educatio i the schools. They typically use movig teams of two motorcycle officers who patrol lookig for druk drivers. There are PAS devices o the bikes. If a patrol uit is available, it will follow the bikes to trasport idividuals. The officers work from experiece ad ofte patrol the back (side) streets as they fid druk drivers try to avoid detectio o the mai streets. Officers look for weavig, stoppig at gree lights, failure to proceed whe the light turs gree, slow ad deliberate movemets of lae chages, or abrupt lae chages, basically icosistet drivig patters; they watch for more tha oe cue, a more costat patter to show the driver may be uder the ifluece. At a crash scee, officers look for sigs such as alcohol o the breath, blood shot ad watery eyes i persos iterviewed at the scee. They also 110
S UA R 1 I A R Y OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS look for cotaiers ad statemets from other parties or witesses. The rovig patrols work best for actually catchig DUI suspects, but checkpoits work best for iformig the public. 0 The traffic divisio holds DUI checkpoits (about oe a moth) but the checkpoits sometimes chaged to DUI teams (discussed above) because of lack of persoel. Four to seve officers set up the checkpoits, depedig o available officers. Motorists are wared of the checkpoit with sigs i advace, but are ot give a outlet to bypass the checkpoit. Whe eough officers are available, chase vehicles are used to stop motorists who tur aroud to avoid the checkpoit. Every vehicle is stopped uless there is a log backup or busses tryig to get through, i which case, the officers would ope up the road ad allow the backup to pass, ad the would begi stoppig all vehicles agai. The vehicles are stopped five at a time ad each driver is approached, greeted ad give iformatio o druk drivig. Idividuals are advised of other mior violatios such as o-use of seatbelts, but citatios are ot issued for these other mior violatios. Drivers are cited for major violatios. Each driver is asked if he or she has a driver's licese, but are ot asked to show it uless there are sigs the driver has bee drikig. O occasio, the police receive calls from the public reportig suspected druk drivers ad have sometimes bee able to sed uits directly to itercept the idividuals. There is a pursuit policy that is ot specific to DUI cases. Officers do everythig ecessary to termiate the pursuit by stoppig the suspect, but will call offthe pursuit forayusafe coditios (traffic, weather). Officers oro-duty Watch Commaders may termiate a pursuit. Reportedly, druk drivers sometimes will ot stop but will cotiue at the same rate of speed (ot at a icreased speed) ad i those cases, typically, aother uit will get i frot of the suspected druk driver ad slow to a stop i a attempt to stop the suspect. Officers ofte must improvise because the impaired or drik drivers are ot actig or reactig ormally. Fieldlvestigatio. Ocethevehicle is stopped, the officerwill approach thevehicle ad ask the driver for a licese, usually gettig close eough to see what the idividual is doig ad to smell ay odor of alcohol. The officer will be lookig for how the idividual retrieves the licese (fumblig, passes over it several times while lookig for it, caot fid it whe the officer sees it) ad listeig for slurred or icoheret speech. If sigs of impairmet are evidet, the idividual will be asked to get out of the vehicle ad the officer will ote if the idividual trips or has trouble exitig the vehicle. The officer will typically be makig metal otes at that poit as to the idividual's gait ad if the vehicle was used as a crutch to steady the idividual while walkig. Normally, a backup uit will have arrived at this poit because the first officer would have reported followig a possible druk driver ad 111
PROBLF SAND SOLU77ONSINDWI FNFORCFMENT SYSTEMS makig the stop, ad a backup uit would have bee dispatched. The perso will be asked a series of questios before beig asked to perform field sobriety tests. These questios iclude topics such as if the idividual is uder medical care, takig ay medicatios, have ay leg, back or hip problems (or feet, akles, kees) to determie if the field sobriety tests eed to be altered to accommodate the perso. Occasioally the officers will ecouter a disabled perso ad suitable tests must be give which are fair ad impartial to the idividual. Based o the situatio, the officers will determie which field sobriety tests to admiister. There is o policy, but it is routie for oe officer to be i frot of the suspect givig istructios ad oe officer will be behid the suspect i case the idividual would fall. Geerally the suspect will be asked to perform at least three physical field sobriety tests as well as gaze ystagmus. Reportedly arcotics are ofte ivolved as well as, or istead of alcohol (the officer cotacteded estimated as may as oe-third of DUI arrests ivolve alcohol plus aother substace, ofte marijuaa). The officers have PAS devices available ad ca call the DRE, if that expert is available. The arrestig officer uses every tool available, but if the DRE is ot available, ad the perso is clearly impaired although BAC levels may be low, the perso is still arrested. Arrest ad Trasport VIolator. Persos suspected of DUI are placed uder arrest at the scee ad give a choice of blood, breath or urie tests ad the are trasported to take the chose test. If drugs are suspected, the optios are blood or urie. The tests are madated by state law. Test results or refusal forms are added to the reports.. The officer cotacted estimates 3 out of 10 idividuals refuse the breath test. Sometimes, they choose the test, but whe they get to the statio, they will try to cheat the test or refuse at that poit. Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig. Idividuals are booked at the cetral statio which has a jail facility. Processig idividuals arrested for DUI does ot vary by eforcemet method except for whe checkpoits are used, where the of ficers geerally do ot have a drivig patter for the case. If there are o warrats outstadig for a idividual, ad the perso has sobered up (miimum of five hours), he or she is cited out. Geerally if the perso was stopped o a major street, the vehicle is impouded. Idividuals are ot Mirada-ized uless a crime has bee committed (would be for drugs, ot for alcohol). Sometimes, if field coditios are ot safe, field sobriety tests ca be doe at the statio. Also, if lightig coditios i the field are poor, the other eye tests may be coducted at the statio as well, especially for drug ivolvemet where the eyes are studied for idicatios. Followig a crash, everyoe at the scee is iterviewed. I the case of aregulardul stop, passegers are sometimes asked questios ifthe driver is too druk to remember or is ucooperative. 112
SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS Arrest ad Processig lime. There is a lot of paperwork for officers to process DUI arrestees. It typically takes a officer two hours from the time of the stop util the officer is back out o the street, ad the the report may ot ecessarily be writte. Paperwork cosists of a Itoximeter form (if the perso took the breath test), bookig iformatio (ifabookig officer is ot available), possibly a admiistrative per se form ad a temporary licese must be filled out for the idividual, ad the officer's report If a idividual stays i custody, he or she must be arraiged withi 48 hours; otherwise, if released o a citatio, court dates are set for 30 days after the arrest. Prosecutio Support. Most DUI offeders will plead guilty or plead out to reckless drivig if it is a first offese; a small umber of cases actually go to trial. The cases which do go to court are usually idividuals with prior DUI offeses who are facig more serious jail time. For cases which proceed to court, officers will review their reports to refresh their memory of the case ad will usually meet with the district attorey beforehad to prepare a game pla for what might happe i court. Majorissues ivolvigpolice officers attrial icludeprobable cause, adthe defese sometimes tries to suppress evidece sayig their cliets did ot uderstad their rights. Because both the defese attoreys ad prosecutors must disclose what evidece they have, the prosecutor kows ahead of time what areas are goig to be covered more thoroughly ad ca go over those areas with the officers. The arrestig officer usually must testify, but it is ot just limited to that officer if, for example, other officers were o the scee or got ivolved somehow. For prelimiary hearigs, sometimes the officer is just placed o call, but does ot have to appear if the offeder is goig to plead guilty or plead out. The majority of time for trials, the officer does ot take the stad, but the defese waits to see if all the pieces are i place (the officer shows up, the paperwork is i order, etc.) before pleadig guilty. After the arraigmet where the charges agaist the idividual ad the status (bailed out, cited out, etc.) are give, the prelimiary hearig is set. The prelimiary hearig was described as a "mii trial" to see if there is eough evidece to go to trial or eough that the perso pleads guilty without goig to trial. Officers must testify if they are called to a admiistrative hearig which is doe through the driver licesig agecy. Reportedly, officers are rarely called to admiistrative hearigs (the officer cotacted had oly appeared at two hearigs). If a adult has a BAC of 0.08 or greater, the licese is immediately seized ad the perso is give a temporary licese which is good for 30 days. Withi that 30 days the perso must appear before the DMV to cotest the seizure ad plead the case to retrieve his or her licese. The officers are ot always subpoeaed ito the DMV hearig, but sometimes they are ad the must appear. The hearigs are iformal, requirig approximately 30 miutes of a officer's time. The officers will typically 113
PROBLEMISANDSOLUTIONSINDWIENFORCE 4 NTSyS E&B testify why the stop occurred, what the alcohol cotet i the perso's blood was, what the perso did, or aythig that might come up i a trial. Whe the officer is fiished aswerig questios, he or she leaves ad typically does ot kow if the suspesio is upheld or if the licese is give back. The idividual charged may ot fid out immediately either. Hadlig Juveile Cases. Reportedly there are few juveile DUI offeders i Sa Gabriel. Juveiles are give a PAS test, a form is filled out, the citatio issued ad the licese is suspeded for oe year. The juveile is the released to a paret or resposible party. Ifthejuveile is arrested for DUI, he or she is booked, the parets are otified ad the the juveile is released. Commets. The Sa Gabriel Police Departmet coducted a study of the ethic breakdow of DUI offeders. There is mix of Asia, Hispaic, ad Caucasia populatios i the area, ad DUI offeders are reportedly represeted equally amog these three groups. 114
SARASOTA, FLORIDA SUMMARY OFTFLEPHONEDISCUSSIONS Departmet Size. 188 officers at time of cotact. State Laws. BAC limits are 0.08 i Florida. There is a 0.02 law for persos uder the age of 21. If someoe uder 21 is stopped for ay reaso, ad the officer smells alcohol o the perso's breath, the officer does ot eed probable cause for DUI at that poit to request a breath test. If the perso does ot give a breath test, he/she will be give a citatio ad will lose his/her licese for a period of oe year. If the perso takes the test ad blows a 0.02-0.08, the result is loss of licese for six moths. Traiig. All Sarasota officers are traied iitially at the police academy o detectio cues ad o how to perform field sobriety tests. The officers i the traffic uit have also bee through a 40 hour course (IPTM i Jacksoville) which teaches detectio of DUIs ad ew, improved field sobriety detectio techiques. Also, all ew Sarasota police officers must sped 3 days traiig with the traffic uit officers, who are certified traiers. The traiig officers go over the traffic laws ad procedures. F.forcemetadApprehesio. Sarasota uses routie patrols, checkpoits, ad DUI task force patrols which are actually traffic patrols lookig for violatios ad DUIs; these patrols do ot have to aswer routie calls for service. Three to four checkpoits a year, which are coducted aroud holidays, are heavily publicized to iform the public the police are watchig for DUIs. The publicity is the itet, rather tha actually arrestig large umbers of DUI offeders. The patrol divisio usig marked police cars make the majority of DUI arrests. Officers i the traffic divisio ormally hadle the "DUI directed patrols." There is oe officer per vehicle. They drive umarked cars because of their ormal traffic fuctios durig the day to catch speeders, but this reportedly is ot a advatage i apprehedig DUI suspects, because the average DUI offeder does ot realize if "you have blue lights o the top or ot." May times officers are forced to use a sire to get the attetio of a DUI suspect. Movig surveillace is usually coducted because followig a DUI suspect gives a officer time to build a case by observig detectio cues ("straddlig the ceter lae, weavig withi a lae is a good idicator, huggig the left or right side of the lae as if usig the lae marker to judge where they are goig," ivariably crossig the lae marker at some poits). Reportedly, youger, more iexperieced drivers will go faster ad drive more recklessly (e.g., squealig tires goig aroud a corer or rollig through a stop sig) ad older persos will be slower ad more deliberate i their actios ("they kow they have to go home ad are goig to take it easy to make 115
PROBLFJV SAND SOLU77ONSINDWI FIVFORCEMENT SYSTEMS sure they get there ad do't ed up i the ditches," possibly drivig 5-10 miles uder the speed limit). The traffic officers respod to all serious ijury ad fatal crashes. Whe respodig to a crash scee, the officers will ask the EMTs or others already at the scee if there were ay sigs of alcohol ivolvemet. The officers will also iterview witesses or passegers ad observe the scee for ope cotaiers, etc. Ufortuately, there is usually o drivig case, oly the results of the drivig. There might be a issue of whether the perso ca eve be placed behid the wheel. Oce it has bee determied alcohol was ivolved, the driver or witess would be asked if the perso was the driver, the oly occupat i the vehicle or if there were others, etc., to try ad establish that the perso was drivig the carat the time of the crash. The officer must also determie that the perso has ot had aythig after the crash that added to the blood alcohol level. The Sarasota Police Departmet has a policy which geerally allows pursuits. The officers must call i thereaso forthe pursuit, locatio, ad descriptio ofthevehicle o the radio. At that time, the supervisor will ask the pursuig officers ay additioal ecessary questios (e.g., speeds beig traveled, how the suspect is drivig ad if suspect is dagerously weavig, traffic coditios or road coditios), ad the. supervisor ca termiate the pursuit at ay time. `' Commuicatios makes sure everythig is beig recorded. The supervisor must complete a use-of-force form which is the same form used if physical force was used to arrest someoe. The form ad tape ad ay other evidece go before a use-of-force board, ad a determiatio is made whether use of force was justified. At the time of the cotact, Sarasota was i the middle of a DUI eforcemet grat ad had five video cameras which had bee i use for about six moths. Every traffic stop, icludig DUI stops, are ow taped, because whe the blue lights are tured o, the camera is automatically activated. The officer we cotacted had made 5-6 DUI arrests sice gettig the video camera ad oly had the opportuity to tur the camera o oe time (before the blue lights were activated) to tape the perso's drivig before the stop. He also does ot wat to tur the camera o ofte whe followig someoe who might be a DUI because it wastes tape if the perso does ot display further cues. More importat, it might give the defese i a DUI case a reaso to argue probable cause, for example, by showig that the officer followed 18 cars before fially gettig the defese attorey's cliet. Field Ivestigatio. The officer asks to see the idividual's driver licese, registratio ad isurace ad might ask the perso his or her destiatio. If a odor of alcohol is detected, especially coupled with other cues (e.g., bloodshot watery eyes, slurred speech, dilated pupils, flushed face), the officer will ot ask if the perso has bee drikig, but rather, "how much have you had to drik toight?" 116
SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS Reportedly, the typical aswer will be "a couple." Durig this time the officer is makig observatios such as: did the idividual retrieve the vehicle registratio easily, or fumble while searchig for the licese, how may times did he or she pass over the driver licese before pullig it out? The police do ot use passive sesors; passive sesors are ot allowed i the state of Florida. This may chage uder a pedig DUI law, but details were ot available at the time of the cotact.) At oe time, apre-arrest breathtestwas allowed, buthabitual orrepeatoffeders kew about it ad would request it to stall for time, because the results were ot admissible. The jury could ot eve be told that the idividual had bee give a pre-arrest breath test. It was more of a hidrace to law eforcemet tha a help. The video cameras are used to tape the field sobriety tests. A backup patrol uit will be called if oe has ot already arrived ad the backup officer will operate the camera to isure the tests are coducted withi the field of visio of the camera ad the audio is clear. However, aother officer is ot required to be o the scee. Officers request that suspects perform five field sobriety tests. The field sobriety tests used are the balace test, alphabet test or coutig test, heel to toe walkig test sometimes while coutig, forger to ose test, the oe-legged stad, ad gaze ystagmus. The horizotal gaze ystagmus is used because, although it is ot admissible i court, may officers believe it is the true idicator of DUI ad the perso we cotacted has bee usig it sice 1984. The figer to ose test versio used ivolves poitig straight forward ad with the tip of the idex figer, touchig the tip of the ose, ad the out to the side ad touch idex forger to ose. It is oted ot oly how well the perso performed the tests but how well he or she was able to follow the istructios. Poits are take off for makig mistakes performig the field sobriety tests ad for failure to successfully complete each test. Ofte the tests will be demostrated by the police officer so there is o questio as to the istructios. Arrest ad Trasport Violator. The suspect is arrested at the scee (but ot Miradaized at this poit), hadcuffed ad trasported i a marked patrol car with a cage to cetral bookig at the jail. The officer asks the perso if a officer should legally park the car, have it towed, or call a fried or relative to come i a short period of time (5-10 miutes) ad get the vehicle. The perso must sig a waver agreeig to oe ofthose optios. The arrestig officer typically stays with the suspect's vehicle util it is secure, while the back-up uit trasports the suspect. After the vehicle is secure, the arrestig officer proceeds to the jail. Post Arrest Ivestiga tio adprocessig. The breath testig machies are at the jail. There are breath testig techicias at the police departmet ad, if available, oe will meet them at the jail; otherwise, may of the jail persoel, such as detetio officers, are traied as breath test operators. The suspect will be tured over to a detetio officer, butthe arrestig officerwill stay through thebookig process. The 117
PROBLEWAND SOLUTIONS INDWI ENFORC AdENT SYSTE11W officer will stay ad observe the perso for a 20 miute waitig period to see if the perso put somethig i their mouth, drak water, belched or vomited. If ay of those thigs occur, the 20 miute waitig period is started agai. If, however, the perso is a repeat offeder ad kows this, as a recet arrestee did ad used the waitig period by belchig every time at 19 miutes to start the waitig period agai, the officer will iform the idividual that a refusal to take the test will be recorded. Durig the waitig period, the j ail persoel collect the persoal property, the officer gets employmet iformatio, physical iformatio ad everythig that is eeded to prove probable cause ad possibly completes the paperwork. The breath test is ot video taped or audio taped. Idividuals are figer prited ad photographed. The arrestig officer reads a implied coset warig, which is icluded o a stadard form icluded with the DUI paperwork. The test is explaied to the idividual who refused who is the told the driver's licese is suspeded for oe year for refusig the test o the first offese ad 18 moths o the secod offese. The suspect is told that a refusal ca be used agaist him/her i court; the perso is asked if he or she uderstads what has just bee explaied. The perso is the asked to sig either yes (will take the test) or o (refusal), ad the form is icluded i the case paperwork. If the perso takes the test, the breath test results ad paperwork are icluded with the arrest paperwork. A alcohol ifluece report is the completed which icludes detectio ales, field sobriety test iformatio, suspect's maer of speech, ad what the perso was wearig. Defese attoreys will sometimes ask questios i court o the last two items to test the officer's memory ad observatio skills. There is a 8 hour hold policy o DUI arrestees. I most cases, the perso will ot be released uless there is someoe to come ad pick them up. Arrest ad Processig Time. Itwill take the average officer a miimum of two hours (ad up to three hours) to process a DUI ad be back out o the streets. Traffic officers ca typically process i i Vito 2 hours, but it takes other officers loger. The regular officers might ot have all of the ecessary paperwork. The traffic officers carry maila evelopes with oe of each kid of foam that could be eeded to process a DUI. Prosecutio Support. Cases go to court withi 3 moths. DUI cases do ot go to trial ofte, usually oly whe the perso might face jail time (e.g., a repeat offeder, or a ijury or fatal crash), or whe there is a "low blow" (BAC = 0.08-0.10). There are admiistrative hearigs for driver liceses or depositios or trials. A attorey ca o loger get a depositio uless jail time is beig requested or special circumstaces exist. Arrestig officers used to give depositios o almost all DUI cases; the perso cotacted made 63 DUI arrests i oe year, ad he thiks at least 118
S UM1iI R Y OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS 50 wet to depositio. That was because a attorey could look at the evidece ad the decide whether to defed it further, or tell their cliet to forget it. Now, there is a DUI suspesio hearig which is admiistered by the Florida driver's licese people i Bradeto. The hearig officer will liste to the probable cause, will liste to all of the witesses, ad will ask questios. If the hearig officer deems that there is probable cause for the DUI, the suspesio will stad. At these hearigs, the attoreys ow get a "free depositio," because they ca ask the officer ay related questios. Oe attorey tells the officers that every DUl case he defeds, he will take to admiistrative hearig eve though he kows he will ot get the driver's licese reistated, because by goig to the hearig, he will fid out everythig the state has o the defedat. There is a live file policy which meas every DUI case goes to the state attorey's office ad charges are filed, whereas o other misdemeaor charges, the officer goes to a pre-filig iterview ad presets the evidece ad the state's attorey the decides whether to proceed. May times the officer will ot see the state attorey util trial time. If the officer gets a trial subpoea, sometimes a good state attorey or a ew state attorey will call the officer before ad ask to set up a pre-trial iterview to prepare for the trial. They will go over all of the paperwork ad what the officer's testimoy willbe. Before, whe formal depositios were usually give, everythig was trascribed ad the officer had to adhere exactly to the depositio. Our cotact perso believes it is beeficial to o loger have formal depositios as ofte for attoreys to argue. Hadlig Juveile Cases. Juveiles are processed the same, except there is a juveile referral form istead of a probable cause form. For DUI, juveiles are hadled through the adult court system (couty court), whereas for ay other offese, they would go to juveile court. Juveiles are supposed to face the same pealties for DUI as adults, but i reality they do ot usually receive the same pealties as adults. Juveiles caot be detaied more tha six hours, ad they are typically released as soo as possible to a paret or resposible adult. Commets. The perso cotacted is attemptig to setup a DUI trackig system i Sarasota, Florida. The purpose is to provide meaigful data o DUI arrests, test refusal rates, ad outcome of the cases. Most police officers do ot have closure o their arrests. Sarasota is small eough, that if officers kow a idividual has a licese suspesio for a DUI arrest, they could pull the idividual over if they see that perso drivig. Also, the hope is to track officers' DUI arrest ad covictio rates to help poit out traiig eeds. The idividual cotacted believes more traiig is ecessary for officers to detect ad process DUI offeders. 119
PROBLE AAD SOLUTTONSINDWI FNFORCEMFM'SYSTFMS MIRAMAR, FLORIDA Departmet Sue. 111 police officers, with a budget for 119. State Laws. BAC limits are 0.08 i Florida. There is a 0.02 law for persos uder the age of 21. If someoe uder 21 is stopped for ay reaso, ad the officer smells alcohol o the perso's breath, the officer does ot eed probable cause for DUI at that poit to request a breath test. If the perso does ot give a breath test, he/she will be give a citatio ad will lose his/her licese for a period of oe year. If the perso takes the test ad blows a 0.02-0.08, the result is loss of licese for six moths. Traiig. Geeral patrol officers are traied i DLTI detectio (drivig patters to look for) ad there is heavy emphasis o DUI apprehesio, although a lot of the officers, if they believe they have a DUI suspect, will call for a specially traied DUI officer (ay of the traffic officers) to coduct field sobriety tests after the stop ad make a arrest if ecessary. This has improved the departmet's prosecutio rate. The traffic officers are highly traied ad ca close loopholes i suppressio hearigs better tha other officers. The overall police departmet DUI arrest rate has icreased, although DUI arrest rates for most officers have decreased, those made by traffic officers have icreased. Geeral patrol officers, ot just i the traffic divisio, who have show a strog iterest i apprehedig DLTI suspects ad who had the best rates for stoppig ad/or arrestig DUI suspects, are set to a advaced traiig course. Eforcemet adapprehesio. Every other moth DUI checkpoits are coducted i Miramar as a joit effort with other police agecies i the area. Multi-agecy checkpoits are coducted because of the persoel eeded. The officers from Miramar, i tur, travel to other areas to assist with checkpoits. They usually participate i two checkpoits a moth. They have received a startup grat for DUI eforcemet from the state of Florida to help focus DUI eforcemet ad cosequetly have become more aggressive with DUI eforcemet. The Miramarpolice ad members of the state attorey's office sat dow ad plaed the checkpoits before ay were held so that the procedures would hold up i court. The sheriffs office ad other police agecies i south Florida coduct roadway iterviews where traffic is fueled dow ito oe lae ad a officer greets ad talks with drivers, directig those suspected of beig uder the ifluece ito a separate area to other waitig officers. The problem with this procedure is that if hudreds of cars passed through the checkpoit, ad a officer stopped every third vehicle, that officer spoke with a lot of drivers ad it is hard i court to say exactly why impairmet was suspected. The agecies ofte do wire the officers to record-the reasos, but it is still difficult ad they ofte lose suppressio hearigs. I Miramar, 120
SUMMARY OF T El E P' H O NE DISC USSIONS the procedure requires more officers to allow for three areas of traffic flow. A officerflags every third or radom umber vehicle ito the area of traffic flow where officers are waitig. These drivers will be iterviewed, whether impaired or ot The same officer that suspects a driver of DUI stays with the idividual through the etire procedure. This way oe officer has first-had, fast-sight kowledge of impairmet. They have ot lost a suppressio hearig i the year sice this procedure has bee followed. DUI eforcemet officers are give alcohol related crash rates by area so they kow what areas to patrol more heavily. There are two full-time DUI eforcemet officers who oly do DUI eforcemet Their schedules are adjusted to cover peak crash times so they ca patrol to stop DUI suspects ad cover ay crashes which may occur. I additio, the Traffic Uit (budgeted for seve officers ad oe sergeat, curretly operatig with six officers ad oe sergeat) has either a mothly "blitz" or a checkpoit. As a example, o Memorial Day Weeked, the traffic divisio ra a two day blitz, "wolfpackig" for two ights where rovig patrols were used. Officers also address eforcemet problems they may be havig durig part of the ight Marked patrol cars, motorcycles ad special uits (Chrysler Itrepids with o roof lights mouted, oly police markigs o the sides of the vehicles ad equipped with video cameras) are used i DUI eforcemet. There is typically oe officer per vehicle, ad both movig ad statioary surveillace are used for DUI detectio. Officers respodig to crash scees are traied to look for sigs of alcohol ivolvemet (staggerig, odor of alcohol, disheveled clothig, drivig patters). A DUI arrest where a crash has occurred is reportedly very complicated i Florida for police officers to ivestigate (a lot of paperwork, etc.) which is made easier by callig a special DUI officer to the scee. There is o itimidatio factor for geeral patrol officers because they kow they ca just call a DUI officer to hadle the case. At either a crash scee or a typical DUI stop, the first officer there would remai eve after a traffic officer has arrived to take over ay testig ad subsequet arrests. The first officer would secure the scee ad would witess the field sobriety tests, etc. The Miramar Police Departmet has a pursuit policy which states they ca oly chase violet felos ad does ot make a exceptio for DUI; officers basically caot pursue DUIs. The officers videotape as much as possible of the DUI suspect's drivig patter ad the stop. Or if a officer has stopped a idividual for a stadard traffic violatio (such as ruig a red light) ad the, after approachig the vehicle, the officer suspects alcohol ivolvemet, the audio ad video would be started at that poit. Field sobriety tests are usually taped. Field Ivestigatio. Whe the officer suspects DUI, he or she begis buildig the case immediately. The officer asks the idividual for a driver's licese ad will ask 121
PROBLFMSAND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS the idividual to step out of the car for volutary roadside testig. Miramar officers coduct stadardized field sobriety testig (oe-leg stad, heel to toe walk ad HGN). They do ot have passive sesors or PBTs; Florida does ot accept these devices as evidetiary proof of impairmet. The officer cotacted is afraid that if someoe is suspected of cosumig alcohol ad is give a prelimiarybreath test ad blows 0.08 or higher, that perso will refuse the evidetiary breath test. While some police agecies i Florida use prelimiary breath tests, Miramar at this poit does ot If they suspect someoe is over the legal limit, the perso is asked to submit to the evidetiary breath test ad if they blow a 0.08 or higher, the officers have defiite proof which will holdup i court. Arrest ad Trasport Violator. The suspect is arrested at the scee, hadcuffed, ad take to a alcohol testig facility which may be at the cetral statio, at a satellite facility (these are located throughout the couty), or a mobile va. The vas park i areas of the couty where the workload is ad others are at various police statios. Suspects' vehicles are towed to a cetral poud. At checkpoits, there is a "paddy wago" at the scee for idividuals charged with DUI. Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig. If the officer does ot have video capabilities i the patrol uit, the suspectwould bebroughtto a facility, breath tested, ad the videotaped while completig the field sobriety tests (the officer would probably have had the idividual do field sobriety at the scee also). For checkpoits, a mobile BAT va is there to provide breath testig capabilities. The field sobriety tests are videotaped. Idividuals arrested for DUI are take to the cetral facility where there is a 8 hour hold policy or util the perso's BAC is dow to 0.02. But geerally everyoe is just held 8 hours so retestig would ot be required. If someoe has a high BAC (the officer thought 026 or 0.28), that perso must be take to a hospital for medical clearace. Arrest adprocessig I ime. Dedicated DUI officers ca do the ecessary paperwork ad process a typical DUI suspect i 90 miutes, but ca be back out i as little as 45 miutes if ecessary. This would mea coductig field sobriety tests, makig the arrest ad gettig the suspect to a BAT va. The officers do ot had write reports; they audio tape the reports ad tam i the tapes for trascriptios which they later proof ad sig. The officers ca audio tape their reports while back out o patrol or while e route to aother scee. Prosecutio Support. Cases go to court as specified by a preset schedule for "regular misdemeaors" (which icludes DUIs) as set by the couty. 122
SU?IA44RYOFTELF TH"ROME DISCUSSIONS Because licese suspesios are automatic, most cases reportedly go to a driver licese hearig before a magistrate or a hearig officer (ot ecessarily a attorey). There are o rules for evidece, so ay questio ca be asked, ad the officers must madatorily go to these hearigs (each oe takig close to a hour of the officer's time). It was described as almost givig a depositio. Dedicated DUI officers ca sped 2-3 days a moth at these hearigs because of the large umber of arrests they make. The officer cotacted believes defese attoreys use these hearigs to fid out if they ca fight the charges for their cliets or if they should advise the cliets to plead guilty. Also, for every checkpoit, officers usually ed up, reportig to at least oe suppressio hearig. (Oce oe suppressio hearig has bee lost o oe defedat, the others will typically plead guilty.) The few he has see go to trial "get hammered." For the few cases that proceed to trial, it could take a day of the officers' time who were ivolved i the case. Officers are asked about their traiig, if they actually saw the perso (probable cause), how may DUI arrests they have made. The iitial officer is called (what patters were observed, why the stop was made), the arrestig officer ad breath testig officer (if a differet perso). Iitially, the officers who made the stops ad the called i dedicated DUI officers were asked why they had ot made the arrests, meaig because they were ot certai the suspect was impaired. That lie of questioig ceased whe it was made clear that the officers called i the dedicated officers to give the perso arrested the beefit of the doubt ("yes, I thought he might be impaired, but I called i a special, experieced officer to make the call"). The dedicated officers wear differetuiforms i court which sets them aside from regular officers; this is to impress upo the jury that these are highly traied, specialized officers i the DUI field. All of the traffic officers have bee brought up through accidet recostructio ad homicide ivestigatio school (each of which are several moths of traiig), as well as DUI detectio, so these officers are highly traied ad this helps their testimoy hold up i court. Hadlig Juveile Cases. Juveiles are hadled the same except they are take to a juveile facility. There is a differece i some of the forms completed by the officers. Florida's 0.02 bill for juveiles goes ito effect i Jauary (1997); there will be admiistrative hearigs for impairmet for levels 0.02-0.08. As stated before, while some police agecies i Florida use prelimiary breath tests, Miramar at this poit does ot. The officer cotacted is afraid that if someoe is suspected of cosumig alcohol ad is give a prelimiary breath test ad blows 0.08 or higher, that perso will refuse the evidetiary breath test. Commets. For every checkpoit held, a ivitatio is exteded to the state attorey's office to observe ad reportedly someoe from that office always atteds. 123
PROBLEMSAND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORC M'SYSTEMS This helps the attoreys uderstad what the police officers are doig. (Also see checkpoit procedures uder the Eforcemet ad Apprehesio sectio above.) Our cotact believes if there is oe problem with the system, it is that DUI offeders do ot receive eough jail time. If they got 30 days for the first offese without appeals, plea bargaiig, etc., he believes there would be fewer druk drivers. Miramar officers have worked very closely with MADD (oe traffic officer was the Presidet of the local MADD chapter for the last year), ad the MADD orgaizatio has aggressively assisted the Miramar police. At the checkpoits, eighborhood citize groups atted ad observe from law chairs,, cheerig whe officers make a arrest. They provide moral support for the officers ad ofte provide sacks ad sodas, too. The Miramar officers have a good reputatio i the commuity for their DUI eforcemet. 124
DECATUR, ILLINOIS SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS Departmet Size. There are 155 officers i the Decatur Police Departmet. State Laws. Illiois has a zero tolerace law for persos uder 21 years of age. Ay alcohol at all is cause for licese suspesio (o arrest uless over 0.10). The law is the same for DUI for juveiles ad adults (>O.10). It is presumed idividuals are itoxicated at or above 0.10, at 0.05 to 0.10 there is o presumptio, but a case ca be built o other factors such as field sobriety tests ad probable cause. Uder 0.05, it is presumed that the perso is ot itoxicated. (NOTE: These state laws were i effect at the time of the cotact; at the time this report was writte, the BAC level for DUI i Illiois was?0.08.) Traiig. Detectio cues iclude drivig with lights off, weavig, speedig, drivig too slowly. Cues do ot vary based o vehicle or occupat. There is ot a departmet policy to look for sigs of alcohol ivolvemet whe respodig to a crash scee, uless the situatio suggests alcohol might be ivolved, ad this decisio is geerally left to the idividual officers. (If perso is glassy eyed, has slurred speech, etc. which does ot appear to be ijury related... smell of alcohol.) Nearly all Decatur police officers are traied i horizotal gaze ystagmus. There is o set policy, but typically i a driver fatality crash, BAC is obtaied for the victim if the situatio suggests alcohol might have played a role (e.g., ot i a family crash with victims goig to church Suday morig, but i a sigle vehicle, high speed crash late Saturday ight). Eforcemet ad Apprehesio. Regular marked police vehicles are used i ati- DUI eforcemet. Ay Decatur police officer would be watchig for itoxicated drivers. Officers must have probable cause to stop avehicle: speedig, improper lae usage, equipmet violatio (eve o licese plate light). They use checkpoits (called roadside safety checks) three times a year, saturatio patrols ad geeral patrols. Oe dedicated DUI officer is o rovig patrol for six hours every Friday ad Saturday ight, supported by a grat from the Illiois Departmet of Trasportatio. The perso we cotacted believes the public is ot aware of the rovig patrol ad oe of his goals is to create public awareess. Oe patrol car has a video camera mouted with a set view out of the frot widshield of the patrol car. Decatur's "best DUI officer uses it faithfully," but all DUI stops are ot taped. They origially started tapig the coversatio, but a costitutioal questio came up ad the issue has ot bee resolved. He thiks the audio may have to be throw out i some of their cases. 125
PROBLEA AND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORC MEENT SYSTEMS The Decatur police have a writte pursuit policy which, summarized, says if the risk of the pursuit outweighs the ecessity of makig the stop, the officers do ot pursue. They do gather iformatio from the time the officer decides to make a stop, right ow by radio ad soo they will have computers i the cars. If a pursuit is ecessary, the officer is usually already i cotact with cetral headquarters. Departmetal policy requires the officer to relay the charge agaist the perso beig pursued, ad the speed of the vehicle. A commad officer would be listeig. Typically, officers do ot thik about DUI as a possibility uless alcohol cotaiers are beig tossed out of the car, or a driver does ot appear to be i cotrol of the car, possibly evideced by weavig or very slow drivig. Fieldlvestigatio. Officers always ask for a driver's licese ad proof of isurace first. The officer starts buildig o probable cause for a arrest (e.g., glassy eyes; slurred speech; fumblig for licese, ca't fid the licese; smell of alcoholic beverage o the breath, etc.). Next, the perso would probably be asked to step out of the vehicle to a safe area. A backup uit would have bee called by this time as protectio for the first officer ad to provide a witess to the field sobriety tests. Choice of those tests are at the discretio of the officer. Typically, the officer might ask the perso to walk heel to toe, stad o oe foot, cout to some umber, forger toose test. The officer would ormally select three tests uless coductig the tests would edager the perso. The field sobriety tests are ot videotaped uless they happe to be performed withi the field of visio of the permaetly mouted uit o the patrol car. They have PBTs. The suspect is advised of the implied coset law ad told they have to take a test. (PBT results are ot admissible i court) The decisio to iterview witesses, passegers, etc. is usually left up to the arrestig officer; there is o formal policy. Arrest ad Trasport Violator. The idividual is arrested at the scee ad is Mirada-ized. Departmet policy is to hadcuffeveryviolator who has bee arrested ad trasport the idividual i a patrol car. Typically the violator is trasported i the backup uit which would have a cage. Usually the traffic car makes the DUI stops ad the traffic car does ot have a cage. There is a paddy wago which is usually used oly o weekeds. Officers have used the paddy wago at the roadside safety check, but usually trasport each perso arrested idividually back to the cetral statio with aother squad car followig. Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig. The uits retur to the cetral statio ad drive ito a salleyport, which is a eclosed area the squad cars pull ito ad overhead doors come dow to secure the area. This is to provide officer safety ad so the suspect does ot escape. The officers the place their weapos i a lock box ad the remove the idividual from the car ad proceed to the pre-book area with 126
SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS slidig heavy metal doors operated automatically from iside the cetral statio. They proceed to the DUI testig room. Most of the officers are traied as BAC operators. The arrestig officer becomes the camera operator. All idividuals beig tested i the DUI room are videotaped (sight ad soud). The backup officer ormally does the testig. Aother set of sobriety tests are give (ot always the same oes as at the scee). The the suspect is asked for a breath sample. The offeders are advised of the implied coset law ad told they have to take a test (they already have bee admoished at the scee) or forfeit their licese by suspesio. The officer cotacted thiks "more ofte tha ot the perso will test, but there is also a high percetage who will ot test" The post arrest ivestigatio ad processig policies ad procedures do ot vary by surveillace strategy. I Decatur, the Decatur police ad the couty sheriff use the same jail facility ad it is the sheriff who decides jail policy. However, they do ot release the perso's car for six hours after the arrest. Uless the idividual is arrested i his/her driveway, or there is someoe sober i the car that ca drive it, the car is towed by a private vedor for the police departmet. ArrestadProcessig Time. There is much paperwork to complete for a DUI arrest It takes a lot of time ad takes the officer off the street. The officer cotacted thiks the DUI laws eed to be simplified so that such a outrageous amout of time is ot take i processig suspects. Defese attoreys ofte do't try to prove the perso was ot itoxicated, but that the police did ot follow all of the rules ad "there are may rules" so it is easy to make a mistake. It was estimated that there are "about four hours of red tape." This cosists mostly of paperwork ad reports because they do ot like to lose DUI arrests. Prosecutio Support. Court dates are typically 30 days from date of arrest. Officers do talk with prosecutors prior to trial. Officers must atted trials to determie probable cause for the stop ad evidece that the perso was itoxicated (arrestig ad testig officers). The testig officer must certify he or she is a qualified breath testig operator. Because proceedigs i the DUI room are videotaped, may times the cases are plea bargaied by "a aggressive" state's attorey. The officer thiks "there are probably ot 5% of people arrested for druk drivig who have a trial." Officers rarely testify at admiistrative hearigs. Hadlig Juveile Cases. Juveiles i Illiois caot be held with adult offeders. Chargig Process. Decatur does ot have pretrial diversio. The arrestig officer forwards the reports to the Traffic Prosecutor's office. The perso appears i court about 30 days later. The oly time a DUI charge is reduced (usually to reckless drivig) is whe a BAC is below the legal limit, usually 0.07-0.09. The charge wo't be reduced if the perso has a prior DUI or if there was a crash. Whe 127
PROBLEMS AND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCE VT SYSTEMS idividuals are arrested ad take the breath test, the prosecutor we cotacted estimated 90-95% blow 0.10 or higher. She thought it was "pretty rare" whe someoe is arrested ad blows below the legal limit. She thiks that the videotape made i the DUI room at the cetral law eforcemet facility (which icludes field sobriety tests ad the breath test) ad the fact that usually two officers have witessed ad ca testify that the perso arrested for DUI was itoxicated builds strog cases. She caot recall ay time that the police officers have ot provided the ecessary reports or videotape to support a case ad believes they are very well traied. To check records forprior offeses, the prosecutor's office orders the drivig abstract immediately upo receivig the report for a idividual charged with DUI. They also ru a records check i the couty to see if there are prior records ad request a drivig abstract through the Secretary of State's office. If there is a referece to aother state i the police reports, such as the perso had a driver's licese i aother state or had resided i aother state, the the prosecutor's office will ru a crimial history o the perso to make certai the perso did ot have ay prior "supervisios or arrests for DUI." Arraigmet. There are ie judges ad oe of the judges is assiged to traffic court. Every morig at 8:30 there is arraigmet court for traffic violatios. The DUI offeders are arraiged alog with other traffic tickets. The traffic court judge will hadle all aspects of a DUI case icludig petitio to rescid, etc., except if it goes to trial. The ay judge might hadle the case. Trial. The oly time the arrestig officer is preset is whe subpoeaed by the prosecutor's office ad that would oly be for a bech trial, a jury trial, or if there has bee a petitio to rescid filed ad the prosecutor eeds the officer preset. The prosecutor we cotacted said a very small percetage of people charged with DUI go to trial. She thiks a lot of it has to do with the DUI room videotapes. The perso kows if the case goes to trial, the videotape will be show. She thiks less tha 10% go to trial. The cases which go to trial are typically repeat offeders who are afraid if they lose the case, they will lose their licese (which is usually the situatio). Appeal. For a appeal, defedats must file a motio with the court that heard the trial, up to the appellate court, the up to the supreme court. The prosecutor could ot thik of ay typical issue which would be used as grouds for appeal. She has heard about double jeopardy i other states (whe perso refuses to take breath test ad the licese is suspeded for that statutory summary suspesio, the prosecutig the perso i the court system for the DUI is double jeopardy). That has goe o appeal a couple of times i Decatur, but the appellate court has held that it is ot double jeopardy. 128
STJIM RYOFTFLEPHONEDISCUSSIONS Admi Per Se. If perso blows 0.10 or higher, the licese is suspeded for three moths; a refusal is 6 moths. If a repeat offeder takes the breath test ad blows over the legal limit, the licese is suspeded for oe year, if a repeat offeder refuses the test, the licese is suspeded for two years. No hearig is required. The oly court procedure is the perso ca try to get a judicial drivig permit from the judge to drive durig that time. The oly other hearig is a petitio to rescid, ad there are oly a few allegatios the perso ca brig up to try to get rid of a suspesio (e.g., the officer did ot have reasoable grouds to believe the perso was uder the ifluece, the perso was ot placed uder arrest for the charge of DUI, was ot properly wared, or for some reaso the perso said he or she did ot refuse to submit -the last oe she has ever see brought up). She said the petitio to rescid happes rarely ayway. Reportedly, i her couty the officers do a "real good job" ad there really are't too may issues to try ad fight. Oce a petitio to rescid has bee filed, it eeds to be heard withi 30 days. The prosecutor questios police officers i court about their qualificatios, ascertaiig that they have bee traied at the academy whe they became police officers. There is follow-up traiig dow the road, depedig upo how log they have bee police officers. She thiks the police i her couty do a "exceptioal" job hadlig DUI cases. Commets. "The first DUI laws were so complex that cops, eve those with traiig, stopped makig druk drivig arrests." There was so much red tape that it was easy for a lawyer to get the case throw out. They have relaxed some, but "it seems like the pedulum is swigig back toward" makig it impossible to charge the perso with DUI; police do't eve get far eough to have to prove the perso was druk. If the lawyer ca fid oe little place "where the officer did ot go by all the rules, ad there are a lot of them," the the case is throw out. 129
PROBL WAND SOLUTIONS INDWI ENFORCFMENT SYSTE E NORMAL, ILLINOIS Departmet Size. 57 swor officers with a couple i the traiig academy (authorized for 60). The Normal Police Departmet does ot have a traffic uit. State Laws. Illiois has a zero tolerace law for persos uder 21 years of age. Ay alcohol at all is cause for licese suspesio (o arrest uless over 0.10). The law is the same for DUI for juveiles ad adults (>O.10). It is presumed idividuals are itoxicated at or above 0.10, at 0.05 to 0.10 there is o presumptio, but a case ca be built o other factors such as field sobriety tests ad probable cause. Uder 0.05, it is presumed that the perso is ot itoxicated. (NOTE: These state laws were i effect at the time of the cotact; at the time this report was writte, the BAC level for DUI i Illiois was?0.08.) Traiig. Officers are traied to look for detectio clues icludig the followig: improper lae usage, speedig, drivig with bright lights o, or stoppig too far ito a itersectio istead of behid a stop sig. They have ot foud that certai detectio cues are more prevalet i certai drivers. After stoppig a DUI suspect, officers are traied to observe DUI detectio cues such as slurred speech ("mush mouth"), glassy eyes, iability to uderstad questios or follow directios, odor of alcohol, or ope cotaiers. Officers do look for sigs of alcohol ivolvemet at crash scees. Police i Normal have video cameras i the patrol vehicles but they are ot always used; "there are probably oly a couple of officers who do it." Fortuately, i their couty, officers do ot have a difficult time gettig DUI covictios. Ifofcers write good reports ad do their jobs right, they do't have a lot of problems. If they were losig a lot of DUI cases, the officer cotacted believes the video cameras would be used more frequetly. He used the video cameras a lot o ight shift, but oe of his tapes were ever played i court. Eforcemet adapprehesio. The officer coordiatig the local alcohol program reports operatig fuds are received from NHTSA ad the Illiois Departmet of Trasportatio (IDOT). There is oe officer o geeral DUI patrol o Wedesday, Thursday, Friday ad Saturday ights. Both statioary ad movig surveillace are used. They use more officers o holidays. The geeral patrol officers are busy eough that whe they get a DUI suspect, they will call for a "DUI car" to come over, if oe is available, ad have that officer do the field sobriety tests ad make ay arrests. There is ormally oe police officer i a marked patrol car, the departmet does ot have motorcycles. The Normal Police Departmet coducts a miimum of two roadside safety checks each year. They occasioally coduct saturatio patrols, but this form of surveillace is used "least of all." 130
SUARWRY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS ti There is a pursuit policy which covers emergecy drivig i geeral ad that icludes DUI pursuits. The Normal Police Departmet ad all of their policies have bee atioally accredited. I additio to the pursuit policy, there is also a DUI Coutermeasures directive. If a officer was pursuig a DUI suspect ad speedig esued ad they were i a dowtow locatio with traffic (where there would be a greater chace of a crash resultig i ijury or death), the officerwould probably stop the pursuit. Fieldlvestigatio. From the time a officer observes a DUI suspect (before the stop ad after) everythig that the officer observes helps him or her form a opiio as to if the driver is uder the ifluece. Every stop is differet, but all of the little compoets add up to either arrestig the driver or lettig the driver go. Sometimes the driver does ot uderstad the officer's questios or respods iappropriately. (A example give was whe asked for a driver's licese, the driverproduces a credit card.) As soo as a officer decides to have the perso exit the vehicle, the officer calls for a backup uit. It is ot dictated by policy that the first officer has to wait for,: backup to arrive before proceedig; sometimes they wait, sometimes they do ot, ofte depedig upo how close the backup uit is to the scee. Officers are provided with traiig to coduct field sobriety tests. The stadard tests used are the alphabet test, the horizotal gaze ystagmus, the oe-leg stad, the walk ad tur, ad the figer to ose test. The officer cotacted always coducts them i the same order, but this may ot be true of other officers because there is othig that dictates a testig order. Field sobriety tests are sometimes videotaped "but o more tha aythig else." PBTs are available to the officers, but agai, these are ot widely used. Arrest ad Trasport Fiolator. Arrest procedures vary from case to case, but geerally the perso is hadcuffed, arrested at the scee, ad trasported to the couty jail where the paperwork is doe. If there are traffic charges or crimial charges, typically the perso is arrested at the scee, trasported back to the jail ad asked to perform field sobriety tests there istead of at the scee. The room at the jail is safer, well lit, with level floors to coduct the tests. Arrested idividuals are trasported i the patrol car of the arrestig officer to the couty jail. These procedures typically do ot vary for differet surveillace ad detectio strategies. For example, at a checkpoit, the officer who suspects a idividual of DUI will direct the car off to the side, admiister field sobriety tests, ad if the officer wrests the driver, the officer will take a patrol car from a pool of patrol cars at the checkpoit ad trasport the idividual to the jail. Witesses ad passegers are sometimes iterviewed (usually a cursory iterview). PostArrestivestigatio adprocessig. Atthejail, officers complete the ecessary paperwork (warig the motorist form, summary licese suspesio, traffic tickets, 131
PROBLEWAND S0LU770NSINDWI ENFOR SYSTE2dS alcohol ifluece report, breath test paperwork) ad the tur the idividual over to jail persoel who take care of bookig procedures ad processig. Usually the arrestig officer coducts the breath test, if the officer is certified; if ot, usually aother certified officer from the Normal Police Departmet. Sometimes if a state trooper is there ad is certified, the tmoperwill hadle the breath test, just as Normal certified officers assist o-certified troopers at times. Oce DUI suspects have bee processed, if they camake bod, they are released o bod. Vehicles, however, are impouded for six hours. Arrest ad Processig Time. A average of two ad oe-half to three hours of a officer's time are ecessary to process a DUI suspect. Prosecutio Support. Most idividuals plead guilty ad the cases do ot go to trial. A very small percetage of DUI cases go to trial; the officer we spoke with has oly had three cases i five years go to trial. Court dates are set 14-45 days. from date of arrest. DUI cases must appear o Tuesdays at 1:30 p.m. If a case does go to trial, officers will meet with prosecutors before the trial "o a good day" but prosecutors are very busy ad sometimes this does ot happe. Sometimes officers have a miute or two before the trial with the prosecutor ad sometimes they will have 30 miutes. At trial, officers are usually questioed o techical issues. Typically a case will ot go to trial uless they have foud a "fatal flaw." (Example give was the officer did ot read the warig to the motorist before the breath test. Occasioally, passegers i the car will testify that the driver passed all of the field sobriety tests i their opiio. But usually there are techical reasos why a case goes to trial i Normal.) The arrestig officer would be called to testify at a trial, sometimes the breath test operator ifthis was a differet officer, ad backup officers. All officers whose ames appear i the report are typically subpoeaed, but they are ot always asked to come i ad testify. Usually trials require about 2 hours of a officer's time. Officers are required to testify at admiistrative hearigs (called a petitio to rescid) ad this happes more ofte tha trials. The office' cotacted estimates 5% of DUI arrests result i the arrestig officer beig called to a admiistrative hearig. Hadlig Juveile Cases. Juveiles i Illiois caot be held with adult offeders. Juveiles are either processed at the police statio or at the sheriffs desk as opposed to the couty jail. Normal has cetralized bookig at the Couty Jail ad there is a DUI processig room there. Parets or guardias of juveile DUI suspects are cotacted; whe they appear at the statio the juveile is released to their custody. The vehicle is still towed ad impouded for six hours (this is state law). 132
SUAMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS Commets. Officers believe there is too much paperwork ivolved i the process. For example, after completig a alcohol ifluece report, officers are asked to summarize the report so others do ot have to read it This report cotais the results of the field sobriety tests which are also icluded i the arrest report. "Everyoe is battlig for their ow time" but o oe is cocered that it takes officers three hours to do the paperwork ad get back out o the street. The process should be shorteed ad streamlied. 133
PROBLFMS'AND SOLUI7ONSINDWl ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS WAUKEGAN, ILLINOIS Departmet Size. 140 officers at the time of the cotact. State Laws. Illiois has a zero tolerace law for persos uder 21 years of age. Ay alcohol at all is cause for licese suspesio (o arrest uless over 0.10). The law is the same for DUI for juveiles ad adults (>0.10). It is presumed idividuals are itoxicated at or above 0.10, at 0.05 to 0.10 there is o presumptio, but a case ca be built o other factors such as field sobriety tests ad probable cause. Uder 0.05, it is presumed that the perso is ot itoxicated. (NOTE: These state laws were i effect at the time of the cotact; at the time this report was writte, the BAC level for DUI i Illiois was?0.08.) Traiig. The two officers who work o DUI detectio have received special traiig. Other officers are traied to operate the Breathalyzer ad the shift (geeral. patrol) officers also make DUI arrests. Eforcemet ad Apprehesio. Checkpoits are ru several times a year, usually aroud holidays (the latest was o Labor Day whe 400 vehicles were processed resultig i 6 DUI arrests, 4 arrests for ope cotaier violatios, 14 drivers with o isurace, ad 12 with o valid driver licese). There are 2 officers who work o DUI detectio ad who are fuded by a state grat. "They drive aroud (separately) ad look for DUIs." Marked police uits are used for DUI patrollig ad typically movig surveillace is utilized with occasioal statioary surveillace. Officers watch for detectio cues such as sudde brakig, swervig, ad drivig across the ceter lie. Additioal detectio cues used after the stop are gaze ystagmus ad a portablebreathtesterkit. Reportedly, officers always check for alcohol ivolvemet at a crash scee. A pursuit is at the discretio of the shift commader who ca call off a pursuit aytime deemed ecessary. The pursuit of a DUI suspect is hadled the same as ay other case. A pursuit usually cosists of o more tha three police uits (origial uit, oe followig that uit ad a third ruig alog o a side street). Field Ivestigatio. The officers have suspects perform field sobriety at the scee; they follow a sheet of procedures. Suspects are asked to perform the walkig test, touch their ose, etc. They have o video or audio tape equipmet i the uits or at the statio. Arrest ad Trasport Volator. Usually the perso is arrested at the scee ad there is usually aother traffic offese that goes before the DUI charge. The suspect is Mirada-ized but the officer cotacted did ot kow if this happes at the scee or the statio. Procedures do ot vary much for differet surveillace strategies; 134
SU,&ASARP OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS roadblocks require more officers (9-10). But after the routie roadside sobriety tests whe there is probable cause, the suspect is brought ito the statio to blow ito the Breathalyzer. Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig. Post arrest ivestigatio ad processig is doe at the statio. The suspect is allowed to request a blood or urie test. For a blood test, the idividual is take to a hospital. Idividuals with high BAC levels are ot released while still itoxicated; for dagerously high BACs, persos are trasported to a hospital. O the bookig process, officers must fill out a icidet report, a arrest report, amotorvehicle report, a supplemetary case arrative statig what happeed, a property report if ay evidece is seized, the warig to motorist, a alcohol ifluece report (marked if the test is refused), if the Breathalyzer is take the the breath test operator's form with the pritout, plus officers must issue all of the appropriate DUI citatios. Sometimes offeders are released to other resposible adults. The suspect's vehicle is sometimes left o the street ad is sometimes towed. At times witesses ad other passegers are iterviewed. Arrest ad Processig Time. A officer speds 2-3 hours from the time a DUI suspect is stopped util the officer is back out o the street. Prosecutio Support. Each officer has specific court dates set by the traffic divisio. Court dates are approximately 30 days from date of arrest. If a DUI case proceeds to trial, the officer(s) typically meets with the prosecutor. O stadard DUI cases, the officer(s) usually meets with the prosecutor immediately prior to the trial. At trial, officers are ofte asked about probable cause, exactly what happeed, ad the are questioed about the paperwork. Ayoe who is o the police report could be subpoeaed to testify (arrestig, breath testig, ad/or back up officers). Officers sometimes testify at a admiistrative licese hearig which does ot take place for most DUI arrests. Hadlig Juveile Cases. Juveiles are released to parets, if o parets are available, the officer cotacted does ot kow what happes but does ot thik for DUI offeses they are take to the detetio ceter. Juveiles i Illiois caot be held with adult offeders. Commets. It would be helpful to cut dow the processig time o DUI arrests. They have bee successful i eforcig ati-dui laws due to the state grat. 135
PROBLEMSAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCF.EVT SYSTEMS OLATHE, KANSAS Departmet Size. 119 officers with a total of 130-140 employees. Olathe does ot curretly have a traffic divisio i the police departmet, everythig is ru through the patrol divisio. State Laws. BAC limits are 0.08 i Kasas. Traiig. All of the Olathe police officers were traied i DUI detectio cues through the police academy. Olathe does ot curretly have a formalized DUI educatio program; however, there will be oe uder the grat program. The traffic officers will receive educatio at a DUI detectio program. Hopefully, over the ext several years, all of the other officers will also receive the traiig, eve if it has to be through their block traiig program where officers who atteded the formal program trai the other officers who did ot atted. I Kasas, police officers eed 40 hours of traiig every year to maitai certificatio. I Olathe, a umber of officers are pulled each week over a approximately 6 moth period of time, ad these officers receive their 40 hours of traiig i differet areas. Typically, the officers will atted two block traiig programs. Officers watch for detectio cues such as lae straddlig or weavig back ad forth which would cause officers to suspect DUI, but more importatly, officers look for aythig uusual, i.e., there is a clear highway with little traffic, but a vehicle is travelig 10 miles uder the speed limit or it stops, at stop lights for a excessively log period of time. The officer cotacted does ot believe the cues vary by age of driver or type of vehicle; however, whe their ew computer system is i place they will be able to track those types of thigs. I the 20 years he has bee a police officer, he has arrested persos of all ages for DUI, from uderage tees to 70 ad 80 year old people. Eforcemet card Apprehesio. Olathe police coduct two checkpoits each year. They do ot ormally ru saturatio patrols. They use movig surveillace while o routie patrol as opposed to statioary surveillace. They have idetified "3 or 4" hot spots such as popular bars ad ight spots i Olathe that geeral patrol officers "keep a eye o," but they do ot sit out i the parkig lots waitig for people to leave. They curretly use oly marked patrol cars for DUI eforcemet. There is a grat which should soo provide four motorcycles, although it is ot clear if these would be used for DUI eforcemet, ad two officers i oe DUI carworkig a 4-10 shift (four days a week, te hours a day-from 6 p.m. util 4 a.m. Wedesday through Saturday ights). Curretly there are the geeral patrol officers workig idividually who eforce DUI laws while o routie patrol. 136
S UMM I R Y OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS Whe respodig to crashes, officers look for sigs of alcohol or drug ivolvemet i the driver ad passegers: odor of a itoxicat, blood-shot orwatery eyes, slurred speech, etc. They do vehicle checks at crash scees ad look for sigs of drug or alcohol use (liquor or beer bottles). Olathe's pursuit policy states that officers should ot pursue, uless a feloy has bee committed (e.g., homicide, kidapig, robbery). Johso Couty has a couty pursuit policy, but most agecies have chose to develop separate pursuit policies. I Olathe, for the safety of the public, if a violet feloy has ot occurred, the officers will usually ot pursue. However, it is the sergeat's discretio, who is actig as the street supervisor at the time, who will advise a uit whether to cotiue or discotiue a pursuit. If someoe suspected of drivig uder the ifluece was pursued by police, ad the suspect icreased vehicle speed to a. usafe level, the officers would typically be told to break off the pursuit. Fieldlvestigatio. The Olathe police departmet does ot curretly have computers i the patrol cars, but are scheduled to be computerized by 1997; they are curretly testig laptops. The fast video camera was istalled about six moths ago, but it will ot be used util a formal policy has bee approved. As a result of grats, three more cameras are comig o three ew traffic cars. I additio, the departmet does pla o acquirig more cameras. Officers will be ecouraged to use the cameras for all traffic stops icludig DTI. Whe about to make ay traffic stop, the officer will radio to dispatch that he or she is about to stop a vehicle ad relay pertiet iformatio. Whe approachig the vehicle, the officer will first ask the driver for a driver's licese, vehicle registratio ad isurace card. Durig that time, the officer will observe if the driver has trouble fidig the licese ad registratio (passig overthe driver's licese repeatedly while lookig for it), look for blood-shot, watery eyes, check for odor of itoxicat, etc. Most officers carry a pupil dilatio chart. They do ot have passive sesors. If the officer believes the driver may be itoxicated, the driver will be asked to step out of the car to perform field sobriety tests. Officers do ot curretly follow a stadardized set of field sobriety tests. They are workig to correct this problem durig the traiig sessios metioed earlier. Geerally, a heel to toe test is doe,, a alphabet test or coutig test (sometimes backwards) is used, ad "some type of a stadig balace test" Reportedly, may officers have differet cocepts of the balace test, but geerally they use some type of oe foot stace with head back ad eyes closed; some officers have suspects keep their arms ad hads at their sides, others stretched out. Specific istructios are give, the officer will ofte demostrate the test, ad it. is oted if idividuals caot follow the istructios. There are plas to videotape the field sobriety tests; the DLTI traffic car will have a video camera. 137
PROBLFMSAND SOLUTIONS INDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS Olathe curretly has alcosesor portable breath testers, as do most commuities i Kasas, which may be admiistered. The readigs ca be used i court as circumstatial evidece, but the case is based o the BAT readigs. There is a traffic citatio issued if a idividual refuses a PBT. Refusig a PBT is ot a "arrestable offese" ad is treated as a ifractio which results i a fie. This is separate from implied coset (coset to take the evidetiary test at the statio) where refusal is a crimial offese, resultig i licese suspesio for up to oe year. O DUls or other "suspicious" traffic stops, classified as aythig which might be more tha a simple traffic ticket such as speedig, dispatch will sed a backup uit. If a officer discovers after the stop that the perso might be uder the ifluece, the officer will immediately radio for a secod uit. The DUI uit which will have two officers will ot call for backup. It will also expedite the reportig process which is curretly quite legthy. All itoxicated drivers must also be figerprited ad photographed. The etire process is reported to be very time cosumig. Arrest ad TrasportYlolator. Idividuals are arrested for DUI atthe scee, frisked, hadcuffed ad are placed i the back of the patrol car ad trasported to the police statio. Idividuals are ot Mirada ized at the scee, but at the statio precedig the alcohol ifluece report whe they are questioed as to their activities before the arrest. This follows state statute. If after processig, the perso caot post bod, he or she is trasported to the couty jail. The police statio has a 12 cell holdig facility, but prisoers are ot housed there. O geeral patrol, ormally vehicles will be towed uless someoe ca arrive i a short period of time to remove the vehicle (i.e., 15-20 miutes). The police departmetwill geerally ot let the idividual make the decisio to leave the vehicle legally parked at the scee. This is because officers are chargig that the perso is impaired, but by allowig the perso to make a decisio, it could be argued as proof the perso was ot impaired. Plus, the police departmet would be resposible for the vehicle. Geerally the backup officer hadles vehicle removal. PostArrestIvestigatio adprocessig. All ofthe processig is doe at the police statio. A arrest report is filled out, a medical screeig report (to fid out if the perso is diabetic, had head ijuries, etc.), the perso is Mirada-ized, the a alcohol ifluece report is completed (cotais questios pertaiig to where the perso was prior to the arrest), the perso is photographed ad figer prited (departmet policy for ay alcohol or drug related crime ad state statute for ay A or B misdemeaor or feloy) ad a implied coset checklist is followed (checked offby officers as they proceed through the checklist). All Olathe police officers are traied i the process ad all are also certified BAT operators. Previously oly Sergeats were certified, util it was discovered how much of their time was spet 138
SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS i court. A secod officer does ot eed to be preset to witess or assist with the BAT. Processig varies for a checkpoit, ad the differece has bee approved by a judge. People charged with DUI at a checkpoit will be released at the scee if they sig a otice to appear (a uiform traffic complait) ad ca have someoe who is ot itoxicated pick them up at the checkpoit. May times the perso who picks the idividual up is give a PBT. The bodig procedure is waived durig checkpoits per agreemets with the courts. Arrest ad Processig Time. It takes a officer a average of two hours to process a DUL Prosecutio Support. First appearace i court is geerally 20-30 days after arrest. All arrest violatios begi at 8:30 a.m. o Thursdays ad Fridays. The idividual ca plead guilty or ot guilty; reportedly, most have a attorey for a DUI charge. Oly a small percetage go to trial. There is a diversio coordiator ad some idividuals plea bargai. Officers will meet with the prosecutor prior to trial to go over the facts of the case. The officer, at trial, will most certaily be asked about probable cause for the traffic stop. Very few cases are lost i court, because, for the most part, the officers do a good job i presetig the case. If a case is lost, it is typically because the officer caot articulate why the perso was stopped. Geerally, the arrestig officer is subpoeaed, ad ifaotherofficer admiistered the BAT, that officerwould also be subpoeaed, ad other witesses might be brought ito court, especially if there was a crash. For a jury trial, a officer may sped 3-4 hours, most of the time spet waitig to testify. The time will vary depedig upo how much the defese presets; the prosecutor has a fairly straight forward case coverig the reaso for the stop, actios the officer took, ad the BAT readigs. Officers must also testify at implied coset hearigs (licese revocatio). Hadlig Juveile Cases. Processig juveiles is basically the same, except forthey might receive a additioal citatio for mior cosumptio or possessio. There is a slightly differet jailprocedure, butthatis hadled through the couty. Prosecutors hadle juveiles charged with DUI the same as adults. Sactios for juveiles are the same as for adults. Chargig Process. The city prosecutor hadles may of the DUI cases ad is the perso we cotacted. Court is held twice a week; arraigmets o Thursday morigs ad trials ad other activities o Thursday ad Friday afteroos. DUI offeders would go through the city court or traffic divisio at the district court. If there is a DUI ivolvig a crash with a fatality, that case would go to the couty for the state to prosecute ad also if the perso is cosidered a DUI feloy (received a third DUI withi a five year period), or if they have already bee declared a habitual offeder for other offeses (drivig while licese suspeded or umber of offeses), 139
PROBLEAISAND SOLU770NSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTFINS the case would go to the couty. They do ot reduce DUI charges; they dismiss the DUI charges ad recharge with a more appropriate offese if they do't feel the case is strog eough. The city prosecutor's office hadles about 350-400 DUI cases a year. The prosecutor's office determies who is eligible for a diversio program. It checks to see if there are prior DUI offeses or prior alcohol related.offeses which would make the idividual ieligible for the diversio program. There are private evaluatio agecies withi the couty, ad also Olathe has a court services officer who does assessmets of the idividuals to determie what type of treatmet cliets eed. A alcohol ad drug safety actio educatio program "ADSAP" evaluatio is required by law. The prosecutor's office does a records check ad requests a certified record from the state of Kasas. It rus a check through ALERT, which is based o Kasas City metropolita iformatio obtaied by police agecies; if the perso is from out of state or there is some cocer, the office will ru a Natioal Crime Iformatio Ceter (NCIC) check. They also obtai a Kasas Departmet of Motor Vehicles certified record, which is a history of the perso's drivig record. There is also a applicatio the idividual completes as to why the idividual believes he or she is eligible for the diversio program. If they kow the perso is from out of state ad is ot a part of the violator compact act which would show up i Topeka, they would the cotact the respective state ad try to get a records check from that state. The city prosecutor did ot kow what percetage of people charged with DUI plead guilty but he thiks it is a high percetage that either plead guilty or eter diversio. He guessed about 75% of DUI offeders are represeted by cousel. There are pre-trial motios to suppress evidece of either field sobriety or breath test results "all the time," ad sometimes motios to suppress for a ivalid stop. A officer does ot have to be preset for chargig or arraigmet If a DUI case goes to trial, the arrestig officer would be called to testify. Others called to testify might iclude ay civilia witesses, ay officers who may have had to follow the vehicle ad observe drivig patters, the officer who coducted the field sobriety test (ad if ecessary officers who witessed the field sobriety tests), the records custodia who maitais all of the records for the BATs, ad the officer resposible for admiisterig the BAT test (if differet from the arrestig officer or the officer who coducted the field sobriety tests). The city prosecutor thiks about quarter of those charged with DUI are set for trial but will plead guilty o the trial date or right before. Whe they or their defese attoreys fid out everythig is i order with the'' case, they might plead guilty. Either the attoreys come i ad look over all of the evidece, or they may fid out 140
SUA& S4RY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS iformatio at a admiistrative hearig ad they covice their cliets to plead guilty. Elemets of a offese iclude a positive BAC, failure of the field sobriety tests, ad the elemets of the drivig that were ivolved before the stop. The Olathe prosecutor's office does take a hard stace o prosecutig DUIs; they prosecute with BACs below a 0.08 (ot always successfully) if the police officers have idicated i their reports that they believe the perso was ot able to safely operate the vehicle. They prosecute cases where o field sobriety tests have bee doe. Elemets which might be cotested iclude a low BAC, o observatio of the perso beig uable to drive, ad, most recetly, idividuals who may be passed out i a vehicle whe the motor is ruig ad there is the questio of operatig the vehicle ad what "operatig" meas. If a perso loses i muicipal court ad wats to appeal, he or she must file a appearace bod with the muicipal court ad prepare a otice of appeal. Geerally, such persos file with the court clerk's office who the files the appeal at district court level. It gets docketed o a appeal docket from muicipal court up to district court So they file a appearace bod to cover their appearace i district court ad a otice of appeal for the case which gets docketed by the court clerk's office. Grouds for appeal sometimes deped o who the attorey is, ad most of the time it is the "borderlie" cases that are appealed (e.g., perhaps o BAC, or someoe who failed two aspects of field sobriety ad passed two, but the judge foud them guilty o other evidece). It is the harder DUI cases that the defedat ad defese attoreys thik muicipal court may have just "brushed by" ad foud the perso guilty, but that a jury may thik otherwise. Sactios. There are ot differet sactios for differet BAC levels. Oce there is a covictio, that iformatio is set off to the Departmet of Motor Vehicles, ad the prosecutor's office is curretly fillig out Kasas Bureau of Ivestigatio (KBI) forms o idividuals covicted of DUI. Assessmets of idividuals covicted of DUI are hadled either by outside private agecies approved by the court or the court services officerwho coduct the ADSAP evaluatios. There is a district court judge i charge of this for the couty, ad he makes the rules ad regulatios regardig how these activities are hadled. The muicipal court ad the prosecutor's office have adopted these rules ad regulatios. They refer idividuals to the approved private agecies for assessmets ad treatmet recommedatios. Ifthe idividuals are eligible for diversio, theprosecutor's office would base the terms of the diversio o the ADSAP evaluatios. If someoe is covicted, the the terms of the assessmet would help determie the level of treatmet (a more structured program, ipatiet, AA, etc.) the perso would be 141
PROBLE?SAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORC MEIVT SYSTELIS ordered to receive. The treatmet requiremets are put either ito the perso's diversio agreemet or probatio agreemet. It is a fuctio of the probatio departmet to see that the requiremets have bee met. If there are problems or violatios relatig to o-compliace, the the probatio officer will prepare a revocatio agreemet which the prosecutor's office will review to make sure everythig is i order ad the they will sig the revocatio. The perso is the brought i ad, depedig o the circumstaces, may go to jail. Durig the setecig, the prosecutor's office tries to work with the idividual to come up with a pla with which the perso ca comply. If the perso does ot comply, the prosecutor's office would like to see the perso set to jail for at least a short period of time, but this does ot always happe.. They do have house arrest available as a optio. Setecig. There are setecig guidelies the judges follow which have bee determied by the state as to what sactios a DUI offeder receives depedig o first, secod or third offese. These have bee icorporated ito the Olathe muicipal code ad the judge does follow the code. Admiistrative Sactios. Admiistrative forms are filled out by the police officers before the idividual takes the breath test iclude the implied coset form. Those forms ad what the police officers have to say is what the hearig officer typically looks at ad listes to durig a admiistrative hearig If a officer made a mistake ad did ot follow procedure, that might be revealed at the hearig. The admiistrative hearig officer may determie that the licese wo't be take. There is a "very set procedure" as to what the hearig officer may look at ad what the police officers have to fill out for the admiistrative hearigs. Geerally the offeses "fall off" of the certified (drivig) record after a period of time; this is the record the prosecutors receive from the state. But if they check the ALERT system, or ru a NCIC check, they ca fid a DUI covictio as far back as records are kept. Ad the prosecutor reports they do check ALERT o all DUI cases. If there are prior old covictios (older tha five years), the perso could ot participate i the diversio program, ad it might make a differece to the judge i setecig as to whether the perso would receive the miimum or the maximum sactios withi the rage set by the Olathe muicipal code. For example, if a perso was covicted of a DUI offese, ad had two' other offeses te years before, the perso would'ot be eligible for the diversio program ad, hopefully, would receive the maximum sactios possible for a first time offeder. He also hopes this would be addressed durig the evaluatio stage. Ad they would attempt to make differet recommedatios at the setecig. A perso who has goe through the diversio program, eve years before, is ot eligible for the diversio program agai. 142
SUARWRY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS There have bee cases where idividuals covicted of DUIs twety years ago are deied diversio, eve though the court ca oly sactio them as first-time offeders. Commets. Defese attoreys who fid out that a police officer is properly certified ad that the paperwork has bee completed properly, will try to plea bargai out. The oly time they go to court is whe they see a hole or a problem i the case. The idividual we cotacted would like to see atiowide DUI certified traiig. Kasas has a program, but the Olathe police departmet has ot had eough moey to sed officers through it. He discussed how traiig at Northwester Uiversity Traffic Istitute is highly recogized i court. He thiks if DUI traiig ca be raised to the same level, with statewide or atiowide certificatio which would be recogized ad would hold up i court, it would cut dow court time ad save moey spet o cases. 143
PROBLFMSAND SOLUT7ONSINDWI EWORCEAdEN7 SYSTEMS TOPEKA, KANSAS Departmet Size. There are betwee 230-250 officers i Topeka; several years ago the traffic uit was cut from 40 officers to approximately twelve, ad seve of these officers deal with DUI eforcemet. There is also a Alcohol Safety Actio Project (ASAP) where officers work overtime or compesatorytime ad assist i lookig for DUI suspects. State Laws. BAC limits are 0.08 i Kasas. Traiig. The perso cotacted has bee a stadardized field sobriety testig istructor for 18 moths. With respect to surveillace, he uses the stadard cues like weavig i a lae, estimatig 75% of DUI offeders display at least oe of the stadard detectio cues, ad he also uses a lot of movig radar ad makes stops for speedig. He reports ot all the officers i Topeka are traied o detectio cues. However, they are tryig to catch ew officers comig ito recruit school ad to trai them with at least a 8 hour mii-traiig course durig "DUI detectio day," where the officers are give istructio, ad watch videotapes to trai them i detectig ad hadlig DUI suspects. Whe asked about observig specific detectio cues which might relate to certai "groups" of DUIs (age, sex, vehicle type), the officer cotacted had ever thought about if certai detectio cues were prevalet for particular groups of drikig drivers. He thought possibly the older drivers who might have drikig problems might drive slower ad seem to be overly cautious. He thiks most officers look for sigs of alcohol or drug ivolvemet at crash scees, or at least they are "gettig more officers aware" with the BAT va. Whe they first got the BAT va, there was cyicism because officers thought processig DUIs was too much work. Now there are officers makig DUI arrests that he thought would ot make those kids of arrests, because they ca call for the BAT va. This meas the traffic officers ca take over DUI arrests at the scee, at aother officer's request, or at least ca offersubstatial assistace i processig DUI suspects. The reaso the BAT va officers are permitted to become so ivolved is to allow more officers to make DUI stops ad the get back out o the street without the log processig time required for DUI suspects. Those officers do ot have to complete all of the paperwork that they are ot familiar with, etc. ad arrests have icreased because the other patrol officers are utilizig the BAT va more. They had approximately 100 more DUI arrests last year tha the previous year, eve though the umber of officers i the traffic uit had bee cut. 144
SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS There is o set DUI probable cause threshold whe a DUI suspect would be pulled over (e.g., certai umber of detectio cues, legth of time followig a vehicle); it is up to the officer's discretio. Eforcemet ad Apprehesio. There is a three year grat, ow half over, that supplies a mobile BAT uit. The uit is a full-size widowless, cargo-type Chevrolet va equipped with a video camera, ad a BAT as well as stadard red lights, sire ad radio. The va is i operatio 6 days a week; ormally Moday through Saturday. The va is o patrol ad also backs up the other police officers if a DUI suspect is stopped. There are two other BATs i two DUI rooms at police headquarters which ca also be used for breath testig. There are six motorcycles available for traffic eforcemet, but these are typically ot used for DUI eforcemet. Topeka does ot have computers i patrol cars yet. They have two video cameras; oe i the BAT va ad oe i a eforcemet uit. If possible, officers will tape a DUI suspect's drivig before the stop. Two ati-dui officers, oe of them usually i the BAT va, work from 8:30 p.m. 4:30 am. Aother uit is also o DUI patrol, typically from 10:30 p.m. - 6:30 a.m. They believe these are the best hours to arrest DUIs. The tavers ad bars close aroud 2:00 a.m. They mostly use rovig eforcemet, ofte aroud the taver areas or areas of frequet crashes. Sometimes, statioary surveillace is used aroud the taver areas. They also have a ati-crime team (ACT) ad SCAT (street crime uit) which maily deal with drug eforcemet. Apparetly, these uits have more police officers while traffic resources have bee cut "cosiderably" durig the last couple of years. Whe ACT ad SCAT set up driver licese check laes, the officers look for DUIs as well. There have bee oe to two check laes a moth, less durig the witer moths. Check laes may be set up ay ight of the week, ad sometimes they have foud mid-week is productive. Whe check laes are setup, it is required that otice be posted 8 or 16 hours i advace. The media are ot otified directly; but the otice is posted i a public access area at police headquarters, so ayoe could come i ad fid out potetial check lae locatios. If a officer starts a pursuit, the officer must call i the violatio or reaso for the pursuit, where the pursuit has started, ad must call for a helicopter. Oe other uit, the closest oe available to the pursig officer may assist with the chase util a helicopter takes over. If a helicopter is available ad respods, the pursuig officers must break off pursuit oce the helicopter has located the fleeig vehicle. The helicopter will cotiue the chase ad call i the locatio of the vehicle. The pursuig officers will cotiue to follow, but at a distace. This policy was developed i hopes that oce the patrol cars have stopped the pursuit, the suspect will slow dow ad ot be a hazard to public safety. If a helicopter is ot available, oly the two uits described above are allowed to ru with lights ad sire; agai, this is to reduce the chaces of crashes. Other uits may eter 145
PROBLUE AND SOLOWNS INDWI ENFORC NT SYSTF)idS the area o a o-emergecy status to assist, but caot pursue. uless give authorizatio by a supervisor to ru lights ad sire. Fieldlvestigatio. The policy for Topeka police officers is to call i all traffic stops with the vehicle descriptio ad locatio. Whe approachig the vehicle, the officer will ask the driver for a driver's licese, otig how the perso retrieves the licese (if the perso passes over it or fumbles). The the perso will be asked to recite his or her curret address so the officer ca liste for slurred speech or smell the odor of alcohol, if that has't already bee detected. The officer will look at the perso's eyes for sigs ad will geerally watch how the perso respods. The suspect will be iformed as to why the stop was made (e.g., speedig, weavig) ad might be asked if he or she had bee drikig that eveig. The officer we-cotacted reported the usual respose is two beers, or the perso had somethig earlier i the eveig, or that the perso had ot bee drikig. Depedig o how the perso has reacted, the officer may ask the perso to remove the keys ad step out of the vehicle at that poit, or may wait for the backup uit to arrive. There are portable breath testig uits available for officers to check out The officer might do a horizotal gaze ystagmus o the perso while the perso is sittig i the vehicle, or later durig other field sobriety tests. The officers also use a oe leg stad test, ad a walk ad tur test If the BAT va is o the scee, the field sobriety tests will be videotaped; if ot, the field sobriety tests might be coducted without tapig. The suspect would the be take to police headquarters where there are video cameras'ad the tests might be coducted agai while tapig. Arrest ad Trasport Violator /Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig'. The suspect is arrested, patted dow, ad hadcuffed at the scee "99% of the time." Departmet policy is to hadcuff before trasportig. This is importat i the BAT va due to close quarters, but is also doe whe trasportig i a patrol car with a cage where the perso is hadcuffed, placed i the back, seat belted ad trasported to headquarters. If a suspect is combative, a uit with a cage will be used ad the perso would be trasported directly to jail. Whe. a patrol officer calls for the BAT va, it would deped upo the officer's experiece i makig a DUI arrest whether that officer would coduct the field sobriety tests, place the perso uder arrest ad begi the ecessary paperwork, or wait for the BAT va ad have the DUI traffic officers take over the etire procedure.icludig the arrest. If the BAT va is o the scee, the suspect is breath tested at the scee usig the BAT. Otherwise, the suspect is breath tested at police headquarters 7ITopeka, theposta -ivestigatio adpro g are sometimes doe i the field with the BAT va ad sometimes at police headquarters, so these sectios have bee combied. 146
SUMMARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS usig oe of the other BATs located there. Durig a checkpoit, the oly procedural processig differece is there would be o drivig violatios, but the same field sobriety tests are coducted, etc. After the perso is arrested ad placed i the BAT va or take to headquarters, a implied coset advisory form is read. The perso's Mirada rights are always read before the itoxicatio reportbecause of the questios asked o that report (e.g., were you operatig thevehicle, wherewere you goig, where were you comig from, have you bee drikig, how much, are you a diabetic?). A DUI report is also completed at some poit ad a arrest report. If the processig of the suspect has bee doe i the field (as opposed to at police headquarters), the the suspect is trasported directly to the 'Departmet of Correctios (which is a couty j ail, separate from police headquarters). If the perso fails the breath test ad requests a blood test, the perso will be take to a hospital ad the to jail. Release procedures vary, but if the atrestee ca get a sigature bod, he or she ca call someoe who is at least 18, has a valid driver's licese, ad has ot bee drikig. That perso must report to police headquarters ad sig a form to take custody of the arrestee ad must agree to watch the idividual for six hours durig which time that idividual will ot allow the arrestee to drive or be out i public. If the perso who has take custody of the atrestee caot cotrol him or her, it is that perso's resposibility to call police ad report that the arrestee is out; if the police fid ad arrest the perso agai, he or she is take to jail ad will ot get out util a appearace is made before a judge. If there is o oe available to take custody of the perso, the there is at least a six hour hold, after which time the perso is released o his or her ow recogizace if a cash bod is ot required. Passegers are usually ot iterviewed uless, for example, the driver does ot have a licese with him or her, the the officer might ask the passeger what the driver's ame is ad other iformatio to verify the driver's statemets. The vehicle would be checked for ope cotaiers. I a crash, witesses would be iterviewed ad asked what they saw alog with their ame, address, ad telephoe umber. I a fatality, ijury or major crash, officers will attempt to get writte statemets from witesses either at the scee or the ext day. A DUI arrestee is asked for permissio for a police officer to legally park ad lock the vehicle. The keys are ormally retured to the arrestee ad are kept with his or her possessios. If the perso will ot give permissio to park the vehicle, a "opreferece" wrecker will be called ad the vehicle will be towed. Reportig forms to be filled out o a "typical" DUI arrest for city charges are: a DUI itoxicatio report, breath test protocol, the card from the BAT, etry i a DUI log, 147
PROBLE SAND SOLUTTONSINDWIIIVFORcFJIdE VT STSTEMS arrest report ad supplemet report, oe or more tickets (e.g., speedig, DUI, driver licese violatio). If state charges are beig filed, the a offese report ad supplemet report would have to be completed. If there are feloy charges (third DUI) the state charges would have to be filed. A NCIC check would have bee ru to check for ay wated charges ad a driver licese search to check if the licese is valid; the dispatcher would let the officer kow if ay previous DUI charges are o the record. If prior charges are discovered at a later date, the charges ca be ameded from city to state. I those cases, the District Attorey will drop the city charges ad file state charges. The implied coset forms have a checklist which provides the date of the stop, reaso for the, stop, ad if the driver licese was valid at that time. The arrestee gets a copy of the form which serves as a temporary driver's licese for 30 days. If the perso wats to request a hearig, there are istructios o the back of the form ad a perforated bottom sectio, which ca be tor off, completed ad mailed to the Departmet of Motor Vehicles to request a hearig. The perso has 10 days if they had-carry the form to the DMV, ad 13 days if the form is mailed, i which to request a hearig; otherwise 30 days after the stop, the driver's licese is automatically suspeded. There are three copies to the otice of suspesio, the violator gets oe, the other two are tured i by the officers to the traffic divisio secretary who seds i all the paperwork to the DMV. Arrest ad Processig lime. As far as processig paperwork, before implied coset, a DUI offeder would require approximately a hour of a officer's time; after implied coset, the time required jumped to 2 hours, but curretly approximately 90 miutes is required to process a average DUI offeder. Prosecutio Support. The Departmet of Correctios has a schedule of court dates adthey setup the date withthe arrestee forthe prelimiary hearigorthe plea days. The officer cotacted was ot certai, but thought the time frame might be a moth or so ad could be several moths (especially if goig to trial). If a case goes to muicipal court, the officers might meet with prosecutors beforehad to discuss the case, but usually oly if there was a serious crash. If a case goes to trial, which is ot ofte, the officers are most likely asked to testify as to probable cause for the stop, field testig, reliability of equipmet, ad the videotapes are show. Whichever officers had bee ivolved would testify, ad reportedly most officers do a good job. It is madatory for officers to show up at ay court proceedigs for ay arrests. Most driver licese hearigs last 15 miutes, but oe defese attorey i Topeka brigs i a court reporter ad he has kept officers as log as,1 '/2-2 hours. Implied coset hearigs ad admiistrative hearigs both take place at the Departmet of Motor Vehicles. A driver's licese might be suspeded with the case goig to trial i 148
SUAAIARY OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS muicipal or district court, but eve if the perso charged wis the case, the licese could still be suspeded by the admiistrative hearig. Hadlig Juveile Cases. The arrest procedures are the same for juveiles, but istead of takig them to jail or a juveile facility, police will attempt to cotact the parets, the juveiles will be released to the parets' custody ad the they will have to set up their court date. If the juveile is to be icarcerated, the perso iterviewed was ucertai, but thiks he or she is first trasported to a hospital to make certai there is o dager of overdose o the amout of alcohol cosumed, ad that the juveile is give a clea bill of health, after which the juveile is trasported to the youth ceter. The city court hadles very few juveiles, eve though techically they ca hadle ayoe over 14 years of age i the city. They have a problem of what to do with juveiles if covicted because the city has to pay to house ay child i the youth ceterwhich costs over $200 a day. Niety percet of juveiles arrested for DUE ed up goig through the District Attorey's office. Most juveiles the city gets are diversio eligible ad they eter the diversio program. Most juveiles arrested for DUI are 18-21 years of age ad are oly charged with the DUI ad ot other charges i additio to the DUI such as uderage drikig. This is oe of the city prosecutor's "pet peeves" because the officers thik the DUI is the most serious charge they ca make, so why file other charges; but if there are other charges filed, it gives him more ways to egotiate. (The prosecutor heard right before the iterview that the "zero tolerace" law for juveiles - uder 21 years of age - passed at 0.02.) ChavgigProcess. We had two cotacts with prosecutors i Topeka, oe with a city prosecutor ad the other with a couty prosecutor who hadles DUI charges for the state. The city prosecutor tries betwee 1,200-1,400 DUI cases a year, he (the city) gets the geeric DUI (someoe is speedig, gets pulled over, crashes). The couty gets feloy DUIs (2d or 3'd covictio, or feloy drivig while licese suspeded, drugs i the car). DUIs are "the biggest sigle thig they do i the city." The prosecutor has bee prosecutig i that office for five years ad there has always bee a policy ot to reduce DUI charges; Kasas has a prohibitio agaist plea bargaiig DUIs. If they have a case bad eough that they are cosiderig amedig it, they will dismiss it. Ad they have oe of the lowest DUI dismissal rates i the state (5%). Normally the offeders plead guilty to the DUI, it is take to trial or the DUI charge is dismissed. They do't amed to reckless drivig, ad if they tried, the judge there would ot allow it. Last year (1995) he thiks they had over 400 diversios, ad about the same umber of covictios. He reports a sigificat umber of people ever make it to court but go out o warrat ad are ot resolved, but of the cases hadled, approximately 85% plead guilty or go to diversio, a small percet get dismissed ad a small percet are foud ot guilty at trial. 149
PROBLFMSAND SOLUI7ONSINDWI ENFORCFMEWrSYSTEMS Every oce i awhile there is a bad case; periodically, there is a techical faultwhere the officer or someoe ivolved "screwed it up" (did ot provide the implied coset advisory, the machie was ot workig properly). They've had a few cases where officers thik the perso is DUI followig a crash because they smell alcohol, the officers write it as a DUI, ad whe the tests come back (which could take a moth because blood tests are ru by the Kasas Bureau of Ivestigatios), there is o proof of impaired drivig. Or there was a crash which was ot the fault of the perso suspected of beig uder the ifluece (example give was someoe beig rear eded while sittig at a stop sig), the perso refuses a breath test ad does ot do field sobriety tests, so there is o case agaist them. A case like that they would likely take to trial, but that is the type of case they might lose. State (actually couty) versus city charges deped o ifthe offeder is charged uder state statute versus city ordiace; most city ordiaces i Topeka mirror the state statute verbatim. A third DUI i 5 years could be ehaced to a feloy charge which would be a state charge; city would oly be doig misdemeaors. Whe it comes to a DUI, a officer i the field has to make a relatively quick decisio as to if it will be a state or city charge, ad this decisio ca be based o faulty iformatio. They must rely o iformatio from dispatch which relies o coded iformatio from a computer for motor vehicle records which might ot be up-to-date. Also, if the perso at dispatch is ot proficiet i readig the coded iformatio, errors could be made. Ad, a out of state DUI might ot be detected util later. If the city prosecutor discovers after receivig the case that it should be a feloy charge, it could be set to the state's prosecutor, but there are also times whe the city prosecutor would prosecute a third time DUI offeder, just because a feloy charge is ot brought, it does ot bee the perso will ot be doig sigificat (jail) time. "You ca argue the statute ad how it should be iterpreted, but if it's charged as a misdemeaor ad at setecig, it's foud to be the third offese, the courts caot call it a feloy." The pealties for secod ad third DUI offeses are very similar i Kasas; a argumet ca be made that the madatory miimum for a third offese be imposed eve though it is a misdemeaor charge. It will ot go o the perso's record as a feloy, but a argumet could be made that the judge has to impose the miimum based o a third time offese. Ad there are some ecoomics ivolved, too. I Topeka there is o city jail; so, aytime someoe is set to jail, the city pays for it. There is ow a house arrest program, which is "excellet" ad also it geerates moey; the offeder pays for the program. So sometimes the decisio as to where to prosecute is made based o ecoomics. Shawee Couty does ot have a house arrest program, so feloy offeders go to jail. Sometimes, if the facts o a case look like he could lose, ad i his mid, he thiks the cliet is deservig, the couty attorey will dismiss ad ship the case over to the city with the uderstadig that the offeder will plead guilty 150
S UMMIR Y OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS there ad be put o house arrest. That way the case is ot lost ad the offeder does ot lose a job. DUI charges are ot reduced because Kasas statute does ot allow it; prosecutors ca oly go forward with a DUI charge or dismiss it. Other charges filed with a DUI ca be dismissed for a plea of DUI. "Give a defedat does't ru" the time from arrest to chargig would be from 1-3 moths i couty court. That's the time it takes to do the backgroud check ad get the perso charged. If it's a misdemeaor charge, a summos will be issued; if a feloy, a warrat for the perso is issued. If the perso has ot ru, he or she will typically be picked up fairly quickly. The summos will go to their address ad they will have a appearace i 30-60 days (usually 30). The perso will be give aother 2 weeks if they eed to get a attorey. A trial date will be set for about 2 moths after the appearace date. Sometimes "fora dead bag loser" a attorey will cotiue it oce just to drag it out a little bit. If they have a defese, the attorey will get a little more ivolved. If there is a test result, they will probably file a motio to suppress. There would be a evidetiary hearig o that separate from the trial. So pick-up date. (arrest) to covictio date might be ie moths i a couty case. A small percetage flee, but those areusually idividuals with problems othertha DUIs. Arraigmets are doe i the court ivolved (either city or district).. Topeka has a DUI diversio program. For a perso to quality there could be o crash ivolvig ijury, the perso must have bee properly licesed ad isured atthe time of arrest, o prior DUI diversio, o prior drug covictio. The Alcohol Safety Actio Project (a fuctio of Kasas court services) idetified as ASAP does the iterviews for the offeders; the requiremets are "black ad white" ad ASAP makes the call uless they have oe that is close; the they will ask for the prosecutor's opiio. The diversio itself is for a 12 moth period. There are stadard coditios; special coditios ca be added based upo the facts of a particular case. (Alcohol educatio is always required, sometimes ipatiet ad outpatiet treatmet ad AA meetigs are ivolved.) The perso's licesed drivig privileges are restricted by the state. Arraigmet. The city prosecutor reports pretrial motios o a geeric DUI are rarely filed (he estimates oly about 15 a year). If filed, they are mostly motios to suppress for lack of probable cause to pull the vehicle over, or o probable cause to place the idividual uder arrest for DUI after beig pulled over (e.g., the officer had o reaso to thik the perso was drikig, so should ot have asked the perso to perform the field sobriety tests). Periodically they receive motios to suppress based o defects i the breath testig machie which are "very rarely, if ever, successful." Also, periodically, they will receive motios. claimig that the arrestig officer did ot supply the perso with the proper paperwork (few ad far betwee). The city prosecutor estimates 20% of persos arrested for DUI are represeted by cousel. The average DUI idividual will prefer to hadle it o their ow ad save moey; 151
PROBLFMSAND SOLUI7ONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS they are ot required to have coucil. There are 10-15 attoreys i Topeka who hadle 90% of the DUI cases. Trial. Of the small percetage of DUI cases that go to trial, the city prosecutor estimates approximately 40 %o plead guilty right before the trial whe they discover all the paperwork is i order ad the police officers are preset. Certai attoreys will use a muicipal court trial as a sort of discovery trial. If they lose i muicipal court they have the right withi 10 days to appeal to district court for a ew trial (a trial de ovo). The attoreys use muicipal court, where there are o juries, to fid out all the facts ad the hope they ca wi the case i district court i frot of a jury. A couple of attoreys i Topeka do this, but it is rare i DUI cases. The couty prosecutor reports a high percetage plead guilty to DUI (approximately 80-85%), 5-10% try ad 5% he does somethig with (decides it is a weak case ad dismisses; decides he could lose at trial ad the perso does ot really qualify for diversio, buthe does otwatto lose the perso so he seds him orherto diversio; or he seds the case over to the city). A high percetage plead guilty because the police.do a good job. He files cases where he kows there are problems with the case, but he believes the perso was drivig uder the ifluece, ad the case wo't ofte be challeged. After a idividual is arrested for DUI i Topeka ad take to jail (ad they all go to jail), that perso is give a court date to appear (always o a Tuesday morig for city court) before beig released. Those who come (ad he reports a lot do ot show up) must see the judge for a short arraigmet. The judge talks with each perso idividually ad asks if he or she uderstads the DUI charge ad asks if the perso agrees with the charge. If the perso agrees, that perso is told to report to the probatio departmet for a evaluatio to determie if that perso is eligible for the diversio program. The perso returs to court at a later date ad will either eter the diversio program or will be seteced. A certai umber of people will walk i ad say they wat to retai a attorey; the judge will give them a ew date to appear (about 30 days). They ad/or the attoreys must appear at the ew date; a certai umber of people charged with DUI sed their attoreys i their place. The judge sets all of the trials i a effort to efficietly use trial time. This is doe so that the judge ca questio all parties to make sure the prosecutor's office has bee cotacted first to try ad work out some arragemet After these efforts have bee exhausted, a trial date will be set. Elemets of Offese. The city prosecutor reports they have good police officers workig druk drivig cases. His elemets of offese (other tha positive BAC ad he reports ot may fight a positive BAC) are field sobriety tests (e.g., were they asked to perform field sobriety, were they orderly, how did the perso appear?). Officers are told the more field sobriety tests they give, the better, the more 152
SUJiAARFOFT IEPHONEDISCUSSIONS ammuitio for the prosecutor. The prosecutor reviews the offese report o cases goig to trial ad o those cases where he is cotacted by attoreys. Police officers complete a legthy offese report ad this is the oe elemet the prosecutor refers to heavily; time does ot permit reviewig all of the paperwork o every case) Videotapes have bee used, i the past, mostly i the DUI room which might iclude field sobriety tests. Videotapes are usually oly used if the case goes to trial; most defese attoreys do't care if they are used. Defese attoreys rarely argue probable cause for lower BACs. If someoe blows a 0.08, the attorey will come before the judge ad try to argue there could have bee a deviatio. The prosecutor reports the judge will ot allow this, the legislature says 0.08 or above ad the judge will ot deviate. Also, he reports the police officer we cotacted is very good at testifyig, ad this officer gives the perso the beefit of the doubt whe he sets up the machie. The couty prosecutor reports elemets of a successful offese other tha positive BAC are positive ID (perso has to have bee drivig), the perso has to have bee uder the ifluece of alcohol to a degree that he or she was drivig usafely or a positive BAC 0.08 or higher, ad the perso had to have bee drivig i Shawee Couty, Kasas. If there is a breath test, the testig officer must testify i court. If he kows the officer ad the officer has testified before, the prosecutor oly asks the officer a couple of questios right before the trial date. If there was a fatality, he will have talked with the officers more ofte ad will be more familiar with the case. Other tha that, it is the same foudatioal questios over ad over agai. His case load to too heavy ad does ot allow much time to review ad prepare. He hadles vehicular homicides, drivig while suspeded feloy cases, drivig while habitual feloy cases, car stops ivolvig drugs ad DUIs. He will hadle 400-500 DUI cases aloe i 1996 ad there are more of the other types of cases. He uses a couple of legal iters to assist, but is resposible for all of the cases. Elemets Cotested. Most of the cases which go to trial i city court ivolve DUIs where there is o breath test (refusals). The cases the revolve aroud whether field sobriety tests were give, claims of prior ijuries so the perso could ot perform field sobriety tests, sometimes weather coditios, traffic, distractios, etc. Attoreys will argue all of these poits. Ad the there are idividuals who have refused to do aythig, ad the defese attorey will argue there is o evidece of impairmet. The prosecutor reports he wis more ofte tha he loses o these cases, but he does lose his "fair share." It kid of depeds o the idividual; eve though they refused the breath test, a lot of these people were caught drivig dow the middle of the mad, straddlig both laes, or a multitude of other thigs that ca be used agaist them. He estimates he wis 60% of these types of cases ad loses 40%. Luckily these cases are few ad far betwee, most people take the breath test, or at least the field sobriety tests. 153
PROBLFJi ISAND SOLU77ONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS Elemets of a trial likely to be cotested i couty court are, whe a perso refused ay test, the defese attorey will argue the cliet was ot uder the ifluece. If there was a test, the the test is likely to be cotested; whether it should be admitted ad its accuracy. For the lower BACs, he reports the better defese attoreys will argue the accuracy of the machie because it has a 5/1000 margi of error. Hopefully, o those cases there is "some good driver actio" (where officers ca testify that the driver was ot i cotrol.) But geerally there was a driver who was stopped for speedig ad the was foud to be uder the ifluece. Geerally oly KIP (Kasas Highway Patrol) officers ca provide video tape of field sobriety tests because they are the oly oes with cameras i all of their cars. For a bech trial, a video is ot that importat, but a jury has a differet view. ti Appeal. Defedats have 10 days from the date of setecig to appeal Muicipal Court covictios. Withi 10 days they have to file otice with the district court of whatever couty they are i, ad must pay the $59 filig fee. The the case starts from scratch i District Court which is part of a state-wide court system, where they are arraiged ad they ca have a jury trial (agai, jury trials are ot possible i Muicipal Court). The city prosecutor reports this does ot happe ofte; he estimates about 25 cases a year are appealed (this small umber icludes all types of cases, ot just DUIs). There are o issues ivolved because it is a brad ew trial ad everythig starts over agai. Appeals i couty court must be filed withi 10-20 days; most attoreys there are lookig for a appeal bod so their cliets will ot go to jail. Double Jeopardy has also bee used to appeal recetly. Sactios - Judicial. There are ot prescribed sactios for differet BAC levels i Kasas, but rather the perso's history is factored i (e.g., umber of prior DUI offeses). Muicipal courts operate uder the Kasas statutes which give the maximum pealties a first, secod, third, etc. offeder ca receive. There are parameters they must stay withi, but o charts. I Kasas district courts, for feloies, there are setecig guidelies. DUIs are "off grid" whe it comes to feloies; meaig setecig guidelies are ot followed. That is a plus because DUI feloies are "low-level" feloies, ad oe of these people would go to jail if the setecig guidelies were.followed; that's why DUIs were moved offgrid. Offeders have to go to j ail for a miimum of 90 days. O the misdemeaor DUIs (first ad secod offeses), there are statutory miimums as well, but that has othig to do with setecig guidelies. O the first offese, 48 hours up to a maximum 6 moths; secod is, by statute, "miimum 90 days paroled to five after the perso becomes erolled i treatmet," ad maximum of oe year. The couty prosecutor reports secod time offeders get five days; judges "are pretty good about ot just rubber stampig the miimum ad lettig them go." O first 154
SUA i ARPOFTELEPHONEDISCUSSIONS time offeders, the miimums are imposed 98% of the time, uless the perso had a prior DUI six years before ad aother six years before that (DUIs stay o the record 5 years). Agai, most of the first time DUls divert, ad those that do't, do the miimum time. O secod offeses, the judges i Topeka look at the offeder's history, ad the recommedatios of the pre-setece ivestigatio rider. State statute requires that a pre-setece ivestigatio report be doe ad provided to the court; DLTI is the oly misdemeaor for which this report is a requiremet. The judge peruses this report ad the makes a recommedatio. For all other misdemeaors i Kasas except for DUI, setecig is immediate. Reportedly, judges also do a good job of ot rubber stampig a third offese, although that carries a "pretty good pealty" already, 90 days jail. Most judges will impose the maximum ad the etertai motios to modify after 90 days. There is o house arrest program plaed for Shawee Couty. The couty prosecutor does ot like house arrest, he favors a work release jail program but that would cost the taxpayers ad the couty moey ad he kows they wo't sped moey o it He is i favor of work release because he believes DUI, more tha ay other crime, arts across the socio-ecoomic groups ad there are a lot of employed people with good jobs who get DUIs. House arrest was implemeted by the mai DUI judge i the muicipal court Secod ad third offeders who are facig sigificat amouts of jail time may be eligible forhouse arrestifthey are employed, or are full time studets, or areprimary caregivers. These idividuals must have atelephoe, be able to pay for the program, etc. They are seteced to serve 2-5 days i jail, they immediately must report to probatio (located i city hall) ad they must provide probatio with a copy of their work schedule. They are hooked up to a moitorig machie o their telephoe which has a video camera ad a breath tester. The perso is called betwee 2-5 times every ight (or day depedig upo their schedule). They must stad i frot ofthe machie, blow ito the machie which registers if they have ay alcohol o their breath. Probatio persoel ca cofirm the perso's idetity by the video camera If alcohol registers o the perso's breath, the judge will have the perso picked up ad brought ito muicipal court. Sometimes the judge will sed the perso back to jail, sometimes ot The prosecutor reports it is a good program but at times it gets abused. Part of the reaso it was set up was to art the costs the city had to pay to house DUI offeders i jail (over $70 per offeder per day). The city prosecutor does ot agree with the use of house arrest i some cases because he believes some of these people are so chroic they eed to be i jail. But the judge makes the fial decisio o who gets house arrest ad who goes to jail. Juveiles probably would 155
PROBLEI?SAND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCFMEIVTSYSTEMS be treated the same, but he does ot ever recall havig a juveile secod or third offeder. Ay covictio or diversio iformatio is set by muicipal court staff to KBI ad the KDOT (for drivig record purposes), ad the muicipal court keeps its ow records. Whe asked if treatmet is ever used as a sactio, the city prosecutor replied ot as a sactio, but as a requiremet. O a secod offeder, it is madatory the idividual receives either ipatiet or outpatiet treatmet from a certified alcohol treatmet agecy. If they do ot comply, their drivig privileges are suspeded util they do comply. Also, the perso's probatio ca be revoked ad they ca go to jail. The probatio departmet is resposible for trackig compliace; they sed a letter to the state which immediately suspeds the licese ad otifies the prosecutor who files a motio to revoke probatio or diversio. O a third! offese, the perso is required to go ito treatmet ad it is a violatio of probatio if he or she does ot comply. Sactios - Admiistrative. Prosecutors do ot get ivolved with licese issues but apparetly for a first time DUI offese, the perso loses the licese for 30 days ad the it is restricted for 330 days followig that (to ad from work, to court, to alcohol school, etc.). Persos who refuse the breath test lose their licese automatically for oe year as do secod ad third offeders. The city prosecutor believes 90% of admiistrative hearigs result i the suspesio beig upheld. Commets. The city prosecutor believes their process works fairly well, although he is overwhelmed with work. He hadles 35,000-40,000 tickets a year (mostly speedig) icludig the 1,200-1,300 DUIs. There are two full-time prosecutors, but he is the oly oe to go to court. The prosecutor is i court almost all day every day. They have two part-time law school iters. The couty prosecutor does ot thik people realize the volume of DUI cases. He said a decisio must be made o what issues to eforce; there is ot eough "people power" to eforce everythig. He feels overwhelmed with the volume ad he kows other prosecutors who are overwhelmed. He would keep the level of DUI eforcemet up; however, people do't realize the judicial system is burstig at the seams. Some sort of plaig or advisory cousel beforehad might reduce this problem. His view of prosecutio is that they should slow dow a little ad make sure they do it right as opposed to weedig through a multitude of cases to fid the few which ca be successfully prosecuted. Topeka police ati-dui officers say they are workig to broade the traiig of the other officers, may of whom have bee required to ride i the BAT va for 8-24 hours to gai experiece ad exposure to the va ad the equipmet. The officer we 156
S W NI4RYOFTELEPHONEDISCUSSIONS cotacted feels cofidet that ot may of their DUI cases are beig plea bargaied or dropped. Whe a officer does fid out that a case has bee dropped, memos are writte to the admiistratio to poit out what has happeed. 157
PROBLFiNSAND SOLU77ONSINDWIFNFORCEMENTSYSTEMS WICHITA, KANSAS Departmet Size. There are approximately 635 officers i Wichita; this icludes eight dedicated DUI motorcycle officers. State Laws. BAC limits are 0.08 i Kasas. Traiig. The officers are traied i detectio of the "20 validated clues" (ighttime DUI cues) sactioed by NHTSA. Eforcemet. The eight dedicated DUI motorcycle officers geerally saturate certai areas which are kow hot spots o give ights. Geeral patrol officers are also cosidered active i DUI eforcemet but they stay withi their beat areas, whereas the dedicated DUI eforcemet officers ca go aywhere. Usually the dedicated DUI eforcemet officers are statioary ad ofte ru radar, each officer usually works aloe ad radios for backup whe eeded. Checkpoits are coducted occasioally ad are usually doe i cojuctio-with KHP (Kasas Highway Patrol). Wichita recetly received grat moey ad purchased video cameras for patrol cars ad for the BAT va, ad possibly aother. BAT. There are curretly four BAT vas. Regular patrol officers wait for a very distict violatio of city ordiace before stoppig a vehicle; a lot of the DUIs come from the motorcycle of ficers who are sittig still ad ruig radar. Normally the first idicatio that a driver may be impaired is persoal cotact. But i route to their positio, they will sometimes follow drivers who might display subtle clues, such as driftig withi a lae, slight weavig, i which case the officer would follow the idividual util they observe a violatio ad the stop the vehicle. There are traffic ivestigatio officers who ivestigate crash scees ad are very observat as to possible alcohol ad drug ivolvemet. If they have ay questios as to driver ivolvemet with alcohol, they call out oe of the eight dedicated DUI officers. Apprehesio. Regardig pursuit, if a driver is suspected ofdu1, theoffcerwill call i to receive permissio from a lieuteat or a supervisor to cotiue pursuit uless the pursuit becomes reckless or dagerous. Departmetal policy is "a lot more liberal" whe pursuig a DUI suspect tha for a geeral traffic ifractio. Basically, motorcycle officers have a o pursuit policy uless DUI is suspected, ad the the motorcycle officer must break off pursuit oce a fourwheel police vehicle has picked up the suspect. After that, oly two marked police uits ad a supervisor (maximum of three uits) may pursue a DUI suspect Additioal iformatio is gathered durig the pursuit ad ow that the radar cars have video cameras, the cameras could be a additioal help i recordig the pursuit The video cameras must be switched o 158
SUNAi4RY OF TFLEPHONE DISCUSSIONS maually. Departmet policy is that video cameras are used o all DUIs, all pursuits, ad aythig else that the officer deems ecessary to documet. Departmet policy o stoppig a vehicle is that dispatch is otified either before a vehicle is stopped or sometimes after a vehicle is pulled over. If a officer sees a car where the driver is obviously impaired, the officer will cotiually call i util the vehicle is stopped; that way a backup uit will already be i route before cotact is made with the driver. Normally, however, the officer does ot wait for backup to arrive before approachig the driver. Field Ivestigatio. Iitially upo approachig the vehicle, the officer will address the driver ad request a driver's licese ad observe how the idividual moves to respod to that request. Ofte, officers pose a divided attetio questio at that poit to see how the idividual compreheds respodig to two requests. Sometimes, the officerwill ask a uusual questio which would make the idividual stop ad thik givig the officer a opportuity to observe the idividual's behavior. Other sigs iclude chewig gum, smokig a lot of cigarettes, etc. The officer ormally asks the perso if he or she has bee drikig ad a typical respose is "yea, I had two beers." The perso would be asked whe he or she fiished the last drik. The legth of time from the last drik is importat if the officer decides to admiister a PBT. If the perso says the last drik was cosumed withi the past half hour, or if there is alcohol i the vehicle, the officerwill start a fiftee miute deprivatio period. ffthe perso says he or she did ot have aythig to drik that day or withi 2 hours, the PBT maual states that the test may be admiistered immediately. The PBTs used i Wichita have gree, yellow ad red lights. The officer says if he gets a red light immediately possibly idicatig mouth alcohol, he might decide to begi a 15 miute deprivatio period ad the admiister a secod PBT. If he suspects the idividual is impaired, he would ask the perso to exit from the vehicle. The officer we cotacted said he would ot typically wait for backup to arrive. The officer believes the eyes are a key idicator of alcohol cosumptio ad would typically admiister horizotal gaze ystagmus. However, if the perso is wearig hard cotact leses, departmetal policy is ot to admiister the horizotal gaze ystagmus evaluatio, because the cotacts could pop out. He would questio the perso about ay physical impairmets, check the perso's foot ware ad the admiister the field sobriety tests. If a video camera is available, the field sobriety tests are taped. Usually, however, the officer has completed the field sobriety tests before a backup officer arrives (a witess for the field sobriety tests is ot required). Officers are traied to coduct three stadardized NHTSA field sobriety tests "i the correct order: HGN, walk tur ad oe-leg stad." Reportedly the oly time officers deviate from this is for obvious reasos such as whe there has bee a crash or the perso is hadicapped. Officers 159
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONSINDWI ENFORCM-MVT SYSTEMS state i their report why they have deviated. Other tests they ca give iclude the divided attetio test. Arrest ad Trasport Violator. A suspect is arrested at the scee ad a call is placed for a BAT va. The vas try to respod first to motorcycle officers because those officers have o meas to trasport DUI suspects. If a BAT va is ot available, a alterative is to have a beat officer trasport the idividual to the couty jail where a BAT is setup. Most of the dedicated DUI officers are certified BAT operators. Or, a beat officer ca be asked to trasport suspects to a BAT va, whe the va is at aother DUI scee. The arrestig officer stays with the idividual for a 20 miute deprivatio period prior to admiisterig a breath test, or the officer will be earby if the BAT va operator is hadlig the 20 miute deprivatio period. The arrestig officer willprovide the persowith the implied coset advisory form ad will read it to the perso. The officer "Mirada-izes" the idividual after the breath test. The reaso for readig the Mirada warig after the breath test is that it states the perso has the right to a attorey. The''implied coset advisory form states the perso does ot have the costitutioal right to talk with a attorey. The officers try to keep the cofusio dow by statig the perso does ot have the right to talk with a attorey durig the test; the after the perso has bee give the opportuity to take a test, the perso is the read the Mirada rights which states they have the right to talk to a attorey. If the idividual blows a 0.08 or higher, the officer completes the suspesio otice for the driver licese ad serves the idividual a copy. The suspect is the released to the BAT va operator alog with all of the paperwork The suspect is the take dow to the couty jail where the bookig procedure is completed. The arrestig officer is ot resposible for the prelimiary offese report, the arrest report, turig i ay alcohol evidece, or bookig the suspect ito the jail. The arrestig officer is resposible for turig i ay gus take durig the vehicle stop ad completig the driver's suspesio form ad for a taped report ad a alcohol ifluece report (a stadardized checklist form which has the three stadardized field sobrietytests, ad a series of stadard questios uder Mirada). Niety-five percet of the time, the suspect's vehicle is towed ad impouded. At the officer's discretio ad with the vehicle ower's permissio, the care ad custody of the vehicle ca be released to aother idividual o the scee who has ot bee drikig. The vehicle is ever just left at the scee: PostArrestlvestigatio adprocessig. Typically the post arrest ivestigatio ad processig take place at a BAT va or at the couty jail (see sectio above, Arrest ad Trasport Violator). For a homicide or serious ijury crash, field sobriety tests maybe admiistered agai at the couty jail ad videotaped. Also, if the idividual 160
S'UA IE!RYOFTELEPHONEDISCUS,SIONS seemed impaired, but did ot have a high BAC readig, officers may call i a drug recogitio expert (DRE). Sedgwick Couty has a policy where everyoe is held for a miimum of two hours. ad are ot released util they have a meas to get home (someoe comes to pick them up, a cab is called). Normally, witesses or passegers are cotacted oly at a crash scee. I additio, if someoe calls i to report a DUI, ad wats to be cotacted, that perso will be called back. A Arrest ad Processig Time. It typically takes a officer betwee 50-75 miutes to process a DUI arrest Prosecutio Support. A small percetage of DUI cases actually go to trial. Officers have limited discussios with the prosecutio prior to trials. Newer officers, although traied i DUI detectio ad arrest procedures, are told to make sure they cotact prosecutors before a trial ad let them kow they have limited experiece testifyig at DUltrials. The eight dedicated DUI officers ormally oly talkwith the prosecutor for a couple of miutes o the side beforehad to go over a few specific details, ormally at the ed of the pretrial coferece. The city-attorey prosecutes DUI cases. Major issues which ivolve the police officers at trial iclude probable cause for the stop, a full 20 miute deprivatio period before the BAC test (otherwise must try to go with impaired statute which is harder to prove), ad how the field sobriety tests were coducted. However, it seems like defese attoreys are ruig out of issues ad are tryig to create ew oes by subpoeaig everythig so that if somethig does ot show up, they have a motio to dismiss. For example, the officer's field otebook may be subpoeaed i which the officer may or may ot have made otes regardig the DUI stop. They have eve subpoeaed the records custodia i traiig so that if that perso does ot show, they ca move to dismiss. The BAT log, video log ad all of the paperwork related to the case are ofte subpoeaed. Whe a officer must appear at atrial, it usually requires 2-3 hours time, most of that time waitig to appear. i t Officers do testify at Driver Licese hearigs, ad the officer cotacted reports "this is the biggest sore spot i DUI eforcemet" Defese attoreys ad defedats use the hearigs as a fact fidig missio to lear of ay weaker poits of the case. They sometimes kow they will ot get the driver licese retured ad admit they are oly o a fact fidig missio for the trial. Other times, if defese attoreys subpoea eough items, somethig may be missig, or a officer will forget to brig a report, ad thethe suspect gets the licese back. If everythig is i order, the hearig turs ito "a oe-sided trial" because there is o oe o the officer's side ad the defese attorey ca ask all of the questios ad fid out details of the case. May idividuals ask for a hearig (o the Thursday followig this cotact, he had 11 hearigs he had to atted). The officer we cotacted says based o the DUI 161
PROBLB&AND SOLUrIONSINDWIFNFORCF4NT SYSTEMS arrests he makes, 25% request a admiistrative licese hearig. Officers used to have to sped the day at hearigs, but the hearigs' must ow start o time ad so ofte officers ow sped 2-3 hours. The BAT va operator (or whoever ra the BAT) must also atted the admiistrative hearigs. The prosecutor we later cotacted also spoke of defese attoreys usig these hearigs as "a big discovery tool." He believes most of the hearigs are scheduled to fid out the evidece or to hope that the police of ficers will ot show up ad that the hearig will ot be cotiued but dismissed, because that is typically the oly way a perso gets back a driver's licese (charges agaist the perso are still pedig). The city prosecutor's office would ot get ivolved i driver's licese admiistratio hearigs except to review the trascripts from the hearigs, because the defese will ofte use the fidigs i court. Oe cityprosecutorhadles first-time offederdui cases. Most ofthese idividuals, if they have o other alcohol-related offeses i Kasas or ay other state, have ot bee ivolved i a ijury-related or fatal crash, ad have ot show a extremely high BAC (e.g., 0.25), are eligible for a diversio program. Offeders are assessed either by the probatio departmet or other certified private alcohol couselig groups withi the city where idividuals are permitted to receive a assessmet. Normally each first-time offeder would have to atted the WIP (Wichita Itervetio Program) which is a weeked itervetio program. After that poit, he or she might go ito alcohol treatmet if WIP persoel recommed treatmet.' The WIP weeked takes care of the 48 hours the perso would typically have to serve for a DUI covictio. Aother city prosecutor hadles multiple offeder DUI cases. He reports the system has bee chaged i Wichita to a "case review system" meaig each case is checked for techicalities ad the is set oto a pretrial coferece. The pretrial coferece is a short meetig atteded by the prosecutor, the defese attorey, ad the defedat, uless the defedat has authorized the defese attorey to make a plea. Pretrial cofereces have bee ordered by the judges i Wichita (for all defedats, ot just DUI cases). I theory the pretrial coferece gives the prosecutor a secod chace to review the case, especially the techical portios which may pose problems at trial. However, sice thepretrial coferece process has bee put i place, the period of time util a case might go to trial has bee legtheed ad has eve resulted i motios to dismiss for lack of time. At the time of this cotact, the problem was beig brought to the attetio of judges. The city prosecutor said some attoreys wat to come to pretrial, talk about the case ad "if it's abad deal," the defese attorey will plead the defedat guilty at pretrial. He said if there is a illegal BAC, if the deprivatio period was right, the temperatures forthe BAT were correct ad the machie was operatig properly, the offeder 162
S UA R, fa R Y OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS would plead guilty. If the BAC is below the legal limit, those are the cases that might ot go to trial. However, he is comfortable with the arrests made by the dedicated DUI officers, the way they coduct field sobriety tests, ad their testimoy. I 10 Reportedly, the more times the perso has bee through the system, the more likely he or she is to refuse a breath test. Most of the times whe there is a refusal, the reaso give is that a attorey told the perso it would be better to refuse a test. For refusals, there is ow case law i Kasas that will allow the refusal to be admitted as evidece that the defedat is guilty. The prosecutor we cotacted said he uses this ofte ad reports that most of the judges will accept it if there is somethig else alog with the refusal such as bad drivig patters, alcohol i the vehicle, stumblig while exitig the vehicle, or icrimiatig statemets made. Appeals ca be filed de ovo from muicipal court. But reasos for appeals are usually probable cause or claimig somethig wet wrog with the breath test (e.g., because the perso had detures). Hadlig Juveile Cases. Juveiles are ot hadled differetly, except that a juveile may ot be take ito a adult detetio facility (by state statute). Therefore, a BAT va must be used to process the idividual, because a juveile caot be take to the couty jail. The juveile may be trasported to the youth detetio facility. Parets or guardias are otified ad if that is ot possible, the watch commader is otified. Commets. Other tha the Driver Licese hearigs which cause problems for officers, the officer cotacted would like to see chages for juveile driver liceses, especially for repeat offeders. The officer cotacted has arrested a juveile who ow has two DUIs, ad a oe-year suspesio does ot seem appropriate; he would like to see a loger suspesio for juveiles. He is also seeig more habitual offeders (5 or 6 violatios). His record is a perso with 23 DUI offeses i 5 years ad the perso just got seteced to 13 moths i jail. The officer thiks DUI offeders are oly doig the miimum jail time specified by state law because "the i is full ad they have to weigh the seriousess of the crimes." The prosecutor cotacted described a bottle eck created by pretrial cofereces which icrease the workload ad exted the judicial process time lie. I additio,. admiistrative hearigs are used as a discovery tool by offeders ad defese attoreys. Also, high turover amog police officers was metioed as a problem for prosecutors because cases are ofte dismissed if the officers have left the force, or are o legthy medical leave. Ad, may ewer police officers are ot familiar with all of the techical aspects of a DUI case.. This is ot a problem with the dedicated officers who are so well traied, most of the defese attoreys "will ot mess with them." 163
PROBLEA&AND SOLUTTONSINDWI ENFORCEMENT SYSTF]vfS HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI Departmet Size. The officer cotacted made 511 DUI arrests i 1995 ad 448 i 1996. He is part of a two-perso DUI task force i Hattiesburg which is supplemeted by a DUI caseworker who is a deputy court' clerk. All three positios are supported by 402 fuds. State Laws. I Mississippi BAC limits are 20.10 for adults ad 2:0.08 for persos uder 21 years of age. Eforcemet. The task force officers are istructed to patrol aywhere i the City for the purpose of idetifyig ad arrestig DtJFs. They also process DUI's stopped by regular patrol officers, o request. The DUI caseworker works the same shift as the DUI task force officers (8pm to 5am). She works Tuesday through Saturday ights while the officers rotate 6 days o, 4 days off. Apprehesio. The officer otifies the caseworker of the stop ad the ID of the potetial arrestee. They use stadard detectio cues for probable cause for the stop. Field Ivestigatio. They employ i vehicle video cameras. A passive alcohol sesor is used to help cofirm the presece of alcohol ad SFST's are applied. Arrest ad trasport violator. Whe officers thik they may make a arrest, they otify the caseworkerwho begis fillig out the paperwork while the suspectis beig trasported. The 20 miute pre-breath test observatio period begis at the time of the stop. No Mirada warigs are give uless a feloy charge is likely. Post Arrest Ivestigatio ad Processig. Oce at the statio, the breath test or refusal is taped. If the breath testis 0.10 or above orthere is a refusal, a DUI arrest is made. The officer must oly fill out a brief arrative, swear to the charges before the caseworker, sig the paperwork which has bee filled out by the caseworker ad the trasport the prisoer to the jail ad drop him or, her off with the bookig form which was prepared by the caseworker. Arrest ad Processig Time. The officers state that they average about 30 miutes per DUI arrest from time of stop util they retur to patrol whe the DUI caseworker is o duty. The more recalcitrat suspects require about 45 miutes. Prosecutio Support. DUI cases are oly tried o Thursday afteroos begiig at 2 p.m. The court has the officers' schedules ad does ot schedule cases whe the officers will be off. The officers eed ot be preset at the first appearace, at which time about 50% of violators plead guilty. 164
S L 1 R Y OF TELEPHONE DISCUSSIONS V Commets. A iovatio i Hattiesburg is that DUI cases are oly tried o Thursday afteroos begiig at 2 p.m. ad that officers' DUI cases are oly set for trial aroud their regularwork schedule. Also, officers are ot required to be preset at a suspect's first appearace, which saves a lot of time because about half of the idividuals charged with DUI plead guilty. A I 165