Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:18 am
Time: 3:18 am
Results for sobriety checkpoints
6 results foundAuthor: Solomon, Mark G. Title: The 2006 National Labor Day Impaired Driving Enforcement Crackdown: Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest Summary: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2006 Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest. Labor Day holiday campaign had three main components: (1) DWI enforcement, (2) public awareness efforts, and (3) evaluation. The program used approximately $10 million in Congressionally funded television and radio advertisements. The message was that police would arrest drivers if they were caught driving drunk. Thirty states reported spending $8 million locally on similar messages. Eighteen nights of enforcement focused on apprehending intoxicated drivers. Forty-eight states reported over 40,000 DWI arrests. National random sample telephone surveys conducted prior to and just after the campaign found that the media effort increased awareness of the enforcement crackdown and a small increase in the perceived likelihood of being stopped for drinking and driving, but indicated no self-reported changes in drinking driving behavior. The number of alcohol-related fatalities were essentially unchanged from the year before; drivers with positive blood alcohol concentrations who were male, aged 18 to 34, decreased in number from 2005 to 2006. Case studies document recent efforts in 8 states, demonstrating that states can achieve significant reductions in alcohol-related crashes when they engage in sustained high-visibility enforcement. Several of these states accomplished sizable decreases in alcohol-related deaths due to their programs. Details: Trumbull, CT: Preusser Research Group, Inc., 2008. 44p., app. Source: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118530 Keywords: AlcoholCrackdownsDriving Under the InfluenceDrunk DrivingMedia CampaignsPublicitySobriety Checkpoints |
Author: Fell, James C. Title: Evaluation of Seven Publicized Enforcement Demonstration Programs to Reduce Impaired Driving: Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, and Michigan Summary: Between 2000 and 2003, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration funded seven alcohol demonstration projects designed to reduce impaired driving through well-publicized and highly visible enforcement. The projects were conducted in seven states: Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, and Michigan. This report describes the program evaluations conducted in all seven states. In each of the seven states, funding supported increased enforcement and publicity. In Georgia, Indiana, and Michigan funding was provided for paid advertising. Each state acted as a case study because the type and amount of publicity and enforcement differed substantially. Details: Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2008. 141p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118751 Keywords: Drunk DrivingPolice PatrolPublicity CampaignsSaturation PatrolsSobriety Checkpoints |
Author: Zwicker, T.J. Title: West Virginia's Impaired Driving High-Visibility Enforcement Campaign, 2003-2005 Summary: In 2002, West Virginia became a Strategic Evaluation State for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Impaired Driving High-Visibility Enforcement campaign. The State implemented NHTSA’s model publicity and enforcement program in targeted counties to reduce impaired driving and alcohol-related fatalities. The State spent nearly $3.4 million on the campaign from 2003 through 2005, or an average of about 62 cents per resident each year. The campaign began during the July 4th holiday period in 2003 and was sustained for the next 27 months, running through September 2005. Statewide DMV surveys in targeted counties indicated that drivers reported significantly more often after the campaign that they had heard about impaired driving in West Virginia and had been through a sobriety checkpoint. Roadside surveys of driver blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) indicated a significant decrease in the proportion of drivers with a positive BAC at the end of the campaign compared to the same period the previous year. In addition, autoregressive integrated moving average analysis performed on the alcohol-related fatality trend for the targeted counties indicated a significant decrease by an estimated 1 fewer fatality each month. The total fatalities saved in the targeted counties totaled about 18 in the year and a half of data available following the July 2003 start of the campaign. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2007. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 19, 2010 at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/WVAImpairedDrivingLow.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/WVAImpairedDrivingLow.pdf Shelf Number: 119636 Keywords: Alcohol Law EnforcementDriving While IntoxicatedDrunk DrivingImpaired Driving CountermeasuresMedia CampaignsPublicity CampaignsSobriety Checkpoints |
Author: California State Auditor. Bureau of State Audits Title: Office of Traffic Safety Although It Exercises Limited Oversight of Sobriety Checkpoints, Law Enforcement Agencies Have Complied With Applicable Standards Summary: The mission of the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is to effectively and efficiently administer traffic safety grant funds to reduce traffic deaths, injuries, and economic losses. OTS awards traffic safety grants to local law enforcement and state agencies, such as the Department of Public Health, the California Highway Patrol, and the University of California at Berkeley. OTS primarily uses federal funding to administer the traffic safety program by making grants available to local and state agencies for programs to enforce traffic laws and educate the public about traffic safety. Examples of OTS‑funded grant activities include conducting sobriety checkpoints (checkpoints) and serving warrants on drivers with multiple driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol offenses. According to its review, OTS grantees reported conducting 2,562 checkpoints and claimed $16.8 million in overtime expenditures between October 2009 and September 2010. No federal or state statutes or regulations exist governing the operation of checkpoints. However, a set of guidelines resulted from the California Supreme Court’s (court) decision in Ingersoll v. Palmer (Ingersoll guidelines), a case which considered whether a checkpoint violated state and federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. For example, one of the characteristics that made the checkpoint valid included having a neutral formula for screening vehicles—every fifth vehicle passing through the checkpoint was stopped—so that drivers would not be subject to the unrestricted discretion of the officers operating the checkpoint. Federal regulation and state law require that OTS produce an Annual Performance Report (annual report), which contains information on various traffic safety statistics, including fatality statistics on passengers not using seat belts and fatalities from alcohol‑impaired driving. OTS also provides information on OTS‑funded checkpoints, including the number of vehicles passing through checkpoints, the number of drivers screened, and the number of arrests for drug‑ and alcohol‑related offenses. These statistics show that checkpoints more often result in citations for unlicensed motorists or for those with suspended or revoked driver’s licenses than for alcohol‑related offenses. For example, OTS reported that between October 2009 and September 2010 the 2,562 checkpoints administered by law enforcement resulted in nearly 28,000 citations to unlicensed motorists while there were approximately 7,000 arrests for driving under the influence. However, such statistics do not suggest that these checkpoints were performed improperly or are not achieving their intended outcomes. As noted in the court’s ruling and as explained by OTS’s management, a key component of a checkpoint is that it provides a publicized deterrent to alcohol‑impaired driving. Nevertheless, these statistics should be viewed with some caution since OTS’s grantees self‑report this information and it is not verified for accuracy. Neither state law nor federal regulation expressly requires that checkpoint data be included in OTS’s annual report. According to the assistant director of operations, OTS does not verify the checkpoint information because it is not required, and doing so would be overly burdensome on its staff. As a result of our audit, OTS began disclosing in its 2011 annual report that its checkpoint data was self‑reported by its grantees and was unverified. Since no federal statutes or regulations define how law enforcement should operate checkpoints, we did not expect OTS to systematically monitor whether its grantees comply with the Ingersoll guidelines. In fact, OTS does not explicitly refer to these guidelines in agreements with its grantees. Nevertheless, our review found that OTS does perform such monitoring on a limited and informal basis. OTS uses two retired police officers (law enforcement liaisons) to witness grantees’ execution of checkpoints and to report their findings to the OTS director. One of the law enforcement liaisons we spoke with indicated that he had visited at least 24 checkpoints between January 2007 and September 2011. The other law enforcement liaison asserted that he had visited nine checkpoints between September 2010 and September 2011. According to OTS, the results of these reviews and a survey of law enforcement agencies suggest that the court’s checkpoint guidelines are being followed. Although we were unable to observe the checkpoints as they happened, we reviewed the documentation related to five checkpoints conducted by different law enforcement agencies in 2010 and found that each could reasonably demonstrate compliance with the Ingersoll guidelines. For example, each law enforcement agency provided either checkpoint‑planning documents or policies demonstrating that it had practices to limit the discretion of field officers by following a neutral formula for screening vehicles. At the Oakland Police Department checkpoint, for instance, the commanding officer initially directed every fifth car for screening but retained discretion to alter intervals, directing more vehicles for screening during low traffic periods. As the checkpoint progressed, we noted that the Oakland Police Department periodically changed the interval to every third car or every 10th car. OTS grantees operate checkpoints using federal funds and may use any revenue derived from these checkpoints, such as fines from citations and fees from towing and storing vehicles, without restriction under federal requirements. Our review of documentation from five checkpoints found that law enforcement agencies charge different amounts for releasing towed vehicles to the registered owners or their designated agents (release fees). In addition to charging vehicle release fees, some police departments or cities we reviewed receive other revenue from vehicles impounded at checkpoints. For example, the Los Angeles Police Department collects 7 percent of all gross revenue earned by tow contractors for police‑related tows. Recommendations -- If the Legislature desires to receive periodic information on whether law enforcement agencies comply with existing sobriety checkpoint guidelines across the State, it should consider amending state law to require OTS to evaluate and include this information in its annual report. Such an amendment should also require OTS to recommend statutory changes if it identifies widespread problems at checkpoints. Details: Sacramento: California State Auditor, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Report 2011-110: Accessed March 30, 2012 at: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2011-110.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/2011-110.pdf Shelf Number: 124773 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrunk Driving (California)Sobriety Checkpoints |
Author: Fell, James C. Title: Increasing Impaired-Driving Enforcement Visibility: Six Case Studies Summary: Research has shown that an effective way to reduce impaired driving is to increase the perceived risk of being stopped and arrested by law enforcement if driving while impaired. One of the most successful strategies for doing this is the coupling of intense and highly visible enforcement with publicity about the enforcement campaign. The term “high-visibility enforcement” (HVE) is used to describe law enforcement efforts aimed at deterring unsafe driving behavior by increasing the public’s perception of being caught, arrested, and prosecuted. Two common enforcement strategies of HVE operations are sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols. Checkpoints concentrate law enforcement officers at the roadside to identify impaired drivers passing through. Saturation patrols involve an increased number of officers patrolling a limited area where impaired driving is prevalent. Both use highly visible elements (such as a concentration of law enforcement officers, bright lights, signs, and marked patrol cars) to heighten their visual impact. Enforcement efforts must be supported by an equal amount of publicity and communications. Publicity regarding the operations also raises awareness, and the perception of increased likelihood of detection of impaired driving. Research has indicated that HVE operations that are well-publicized, conducted frequently, and have high visibility deter impaired driving. This report presents six case studies of HVE programs currently operating in the United States. Three operate at the county level— Anoka County, Minnesota; Charles County, Maryland; and Pasco County, Florida. One operates at the city level in Escondido, California. One operates in a region of a State (Southeast Wisconsin). One operates in six States (Delaware, Kentucky, North Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia. Each case study includes discussion of the HVE program’s history, enforcement strategies, visibility elements, operation, resources, use of media, educational components, funding, support from political leaders and the community, barriers encountered, and strengths of the program. Some case studies include statistics on the HVE operations (e.g., number of checkpoints, number of officers per saturation patrol) and impaired-driving crashes, arrests, and/or convictions before and after the program began. The report is intended to provide information on impaired driving HVE programs for regional, State and local agencies considering incorporating HVE strategies into their efforts to curb impaired driving or to modify existing HVE programs. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2013. 144p. Source: Internet Resource: DOT HS 811 716: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811716.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 129338 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drunk DrivingPublicity CampaignsSobriety Checkpoints |
Author: Parrish, Kelly E. Title: The Problem of Suspended and Revoked Drivers Who Avoid Detection at DUI/License Checkpoints Summary: OBJECTIVE: Although driver license suspension and revocation have been shown to improve traffic safety, suspended or revoked (SR) drivers who continue to drive-which appears to be the majority-are about 3 times more likely to be involved in crashes and to cause a fatal crash. In California and many other U.S. states, drivers are typically mailed notices requesting that they surrender their licenses when they are SR for reasons other than driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI), yet they frequently do not comply. Typical procedures at DUI checkpoints in California and other U.S. states include inspecting driver licenses and checking for signs of intoxication during brief contacts with law enforcement officers. Hence, these checkpoints are in fact DUI/license checkpoints in California and many other states. The purpose of this study was to estimate the extent to which SR drivers avoid being detected at DUI/license checkpoints for SR driving, because they illegally retained possession of their license cards. METHOD: Law enforcement officers used electronic license card readers at DUI/license checkpoints in Sacramento, California, to record data for 13,705 drivers. The SR status of all contacted drivers was determined after the checkpoints and compared to law enforcement citation records from the checkpoints. RESULTS: Although only 3% of the drivers contacted at the checkpoints were SR, about 41% of SR drivers were able to pass through undetected because they presented license cards that they illegally retained. Drivers SR for DUI-related reasons were more likely to be detected, whereas those SR for failure to provide proof of financial responsibility (insurance) were less likely to be detected. CONCLUSION: The fact that many SR drivers are able to pass through DUI/license checkpoints undetected weakens both the specific and general impacts of checkpoints for deterring SR driving and may diminish the effectiveness of suspension and revocation actions for reducing the crash risk posed by problem drivers. Using license card readers that can quickly identify SR drivers in real time during routine traffic stops and at DUI/license checkpoints warrants further consideration. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: RSS-13-244: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-244.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_5/S5-244.pdf Shelf Number: 135228 Keywords: Alcohol Law Enforcement Driving Under the Influence (California) Driving While Intoxicated Drunk Driving Sobriety Checkpoints |