Chapter 13 Supplement Drunk Driving

• A total of 15,935 persons (38% of all traffic fatalities) died in alcohol-related crashes in 1998--an alcohol-related fatality every 33 minutes (NHTSA, Alcohol, 1999, 1).

• In 1998, more than 305,000 persons were injured in alcohol-related crashes--an average of one person injured approximately every two minutes (Ibid.).

• The rate of alcohol involvement in fatal crashes in 1998 was about four times as high at night as during the day (60% v. 17%) and almost twice as high on weekends as during the week (52% v. 29%) (Ibid., 2).

• Intoxication rates for vehicle operators involved in fatal crashes in 1998 were highest for motorcycles (31%), followed by light trucks (20%), passenger cars (18%), and large trucks (1%) (Ibid.).

• More than one-third (34%) of all pedestrians age sixteen or older killed in traffic crashes in 1998 were intoxicated. Pedestrians age thirty-five to forty-four represented the category of victims' age most often intoxicated at the time of death (48%) (Ibid., 3).

• The intoxication rate for male drivers involved in fatal crashes was 20%, compared with 10% for female drivers (Ibid., 5).

• Older drivers (age sixty-four and over) involved in fatal crashes in 1998 had the lowest intoxication rate (5%) of all adult drivers (Ibid.).

• In 1998, 21% of young drivers (age fifteen to twenty) killed in crashes were intoxicated (NHTSA, Young Drivers, 1999, 4).

• Twenty-five percent of young male drivers (age fifteen to twenty) involved in fatal crashes in 1998 had been drinking at the time of the crash, compared with 12% of young female drivers (Ibid., 5).

• Twenty percent of child fatalities (age fifteen and under) were killed in alcohol-related crashes--almost half of these were in vehicles where the driver had a BAC level of at least 0.01 (NHTSA, Children, 1999, 2).

• In 1998, there was an estimated total of 968,868 arrests for driving under the influence of alcohol (FBI 17 October 1999, 211).

• In 1997, drunk driving offenders accounted for nearly 14% of probationers, 7% of local jail inmates, and 2% of state prisoners--a total of 513,200 offenders (BJS June 1999,1).

• Drunk driving is the nation's most frequently committed violent crime (MADD 1996).

(Portions of the following section are excerpted from an article entitled MADD's Higher Risk Driver Program, by Robert Voas, January 2000, <http://www.madd.org>.)

Higher risk drivers have been defined as individuals who repeatedly drive after drinking, especially with high levels of alcohol in their blood, and who seem resistant to changing their behavior. On weekend nights in the United States, only 1 percent of drivers have a BAC of 0.15 or higher, but drivers with BACs of 0.15 or higher account for 65 percent of all drinking driver fatalities. The 1996 MADD "Rating of the States" report found that the average BAC of drunk drivers arrested by state police varied from 0.130 in Montana to 0.185 in Connecticut. A driver with a BAC at 0.15 is more than 300 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. While most drivers in fatal crashes have not yet been convicted of drunk driving, those who have are at significantly greater risk of causing a drunk-driving crash.

What complicates the situation and increases their risk to public safety is the fact that the majority of drinking drivers in fatal crashes do not have a previous DUI conviction, nor do all higher risk drivers come to the attention of the authorities before they are involved in a crash. Heavy drinkers develop a sufficient tolerance to alcohol such that they can appear to behave normally at a high BAC. Furthermore, authorities have difficulty in assuring that an individual arrested and convicted of a drunk-driving offense does not continue to drive after drinking--a shortcoming of state laws and the criminal justice system, and a lack of knowledge about how to apprehend these offenders.

On the other hand, state efforts to reduce illicit driving by convicted drunk drivers through practices such as vehicle impoundment and forfeiture, license plate impoundment and tagging, and the use of alcohol ignition interlocks appear to show promise. Those practices, combined with license suspension and treatment programs, are increasingly being used to deal with higher risk drivers.

MADD HIGHER RISK DRIVERS CAMPAIGN

Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has developed a plan for controlling the risk presented by those offenders who are apprehended by the police and who become liable for license action by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or the courts (Voas January 2000). The recommended actions are directed at reducing the risk that these offenders will drink and drive again. MADD identifies three types of offenders as higher risk drivers:

• Someone convicted of a drunk driving offense within five years of a prior drunk driving conviction.

• Someone convicted of drunk driving who had a BAC of 0.16 or higher at the time of the offense.

• Someone convicted of driving with a suspended license where the suspension was the result of a drunk driving arrest.

The "Higher Risk Driver" campaign seeks to create an integrated, comprehensive system in each state where the courts, driver's licensing agencies, and treatment programs work together to control the most persistent impaired drivers. The court, in conjunction with the DMV, will have responsibilities to:

• Restrict the driving privileges of convicted offenders to keep them off the road.

• See that convicted offenders provide restitution to the injured parties and to the citizens of the community where they have caused a crash.

• Assist convicted offenders in recovering from alcohol dependence by providing treatment programs.

To evaluate the recovery of the convicted offender, payment of restitution, and a successful violation-free suspension period, MADD suggests that the courts and the DMV establish a DUI tracking system to record the outcome of every DUI arrest and the fulfillment of the above requirements. Secondly, they should issue an annual report on the DUI management information systems to identify operational problems as they occur.

• DUI Vertical Prosecution Unit. A DUI Prosecution Unit within the District Attorney's Office in Shelby County, TN handles all new cases involving DUI defendants, including misdemeanors and felonies. The overall goal of the unit is to bring about more effective prosecution in DUI cases by having one prosecutor handle each case from the beginning to the end. To communicate to the offending public that the District Attorney's Office intends to aggressively prosecute drunk drivers, the office secured a grant from the Governor's Highway Safety Office to deliver television and radio public service announcements with the following message:

If you get in your car and drive anywhere at 0.08, you'll have a record. The limit has been reduced--along with our tolerance. Drive Drunk--Do Time--Every Time. Earn the Title of Felon in Just Four Easy Lessons: Have a few too many. Grab your keys and drive. Meet the Cops. Check into the Big House (Blackburn 1 November 1999; 1998 Annual Report).

• *DUI for Motorists to Report Drunk Driving on the Highway. The District Attorney's Office in Santa Cruz County, CA has created a program that permits motorists to report what they observe as alcohol or drug impaired driving on the highways. Drivers with cell-phones may place calls to police dispatchers by dialing *DUI to call in the license plates, descriptions, and locations of vehicles on the highway that are weaving or moving in an erratic manner. The dispatch center contacts the on-duty highway patrol in the area to stop the car and evaluate the driver for symptoms of intoxication. In the event that the suspect is not located on the highway, the registered owner of the vehicle, as indicated by the license plate, receives a letter from the District Attorney's Office advising that a report has been filed and describing the criminal charges than can be filed had the car been pulled over.

While defense attorneys in the county courts have made the case that the highway patrol had no probable cause for stopping the driver, judges in the county are ruling that the observation of a citizen and the dispatch log for the call is probable cause for a police intervention. A substantial number of DUI cases pass through the Santa Cruz County courts each year, 15 percent of which result from a *DUI call followed by intervention. Prosecutors believe that, in the long run, the more the public is engaged in crime prevention in this manner, the less juries will be skeptical of arrests that are instigated by a citizen intervention (Marigonda 18 October 1999).

• Ignition Interlock Program. In Hancock County, IN almost all convicted DUI offenders are required to have their cars fitted with an Ignition Interlock device that connects a breathalyzer to the automobile ignition. The technology is considered to be an effective sanction for DUI offenders and a useful alternative to long-term license revocation. DUI probationers must blow into the device before starting their vehicles; if they have been drinking, their ignitions will not operate. The Ignition Interlock device also includes random re-tests while the car is in motion; if the driver fails the test while the car is in motion, the device sets off blaring horns and flashing lights. Between 1990 and 1995, DUI arrests in Hancock County dropped forty percent, a decline that local law enforcement attributes to the Ignition Interlock Program (Drug Strategies 1999).

• Alcohol Excise Tax Funds DUI Prevention Programs. In West Virginia, all of the revenues from a 6 percent excise tax on alcoholic beverages sold in clubs are used to fund the State Police Commission on Drunk Driving Prevention. In 1998, revenues were nearly $1 million. Local police departments throughout the state receive grants to fund overtime patrols, sobriety checkpoints, and studies on local drunk driving trends. The Commission's efforts have helped reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the state by 40 percent over a fifteen year period (Drug Strategies 1999).

Chapter 13 Supplement References

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). June 1999. DWI Offenders under Correctional Supervision. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Drug Strategies.1999. Millennium Hangover: Keeping Score on Alcohol. <http://www.

drugstrategies.org/keepingscore1999/justice.html>.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). 17 October 1999. Crime in the United States, Uniform Crime Reports, 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Marigonda. 18 October 1999. Personal Interview with Paul Marigonda, Assistant District Attorney Santa Cruz County, CA.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). 1996. Summary of Statistics: The Impaired Driving Problem. Irving, TX: Mothers Against Drunk Driving National Office.)

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 1999. Traffic Safety Facts 1998, Alcohol. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 1999. Traffic Safety Facts 1998, Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 1999. Traffic Safety Facts 1998, Young Drivers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.

1998 Annual Report. Shelby County, TN: District Attorney's Office.

Voas, R. January 2000. MADD's Higher Risk Driver Program. <http://www.madd.org>.

Back to Table of Contents