The cumulative effect of these problems in the criminal justice
system has led to changes in the application of some DWI programs and laws.
Functions traditionally handled through the criminal justice system have
been transferred to the states’ motor vehicle departments, with the arresting
police officers acting on their behalf.
The most notable examples of administrative procedures are administrative
license revocation (ALR) or suspension (ALS) laws, which are administrative
actions of the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and independent of court
action. These laws allow the arresting police officer to revoke or suspend
the license of drivers who either fail or refuse to take a chemical test
for alcohol. The officer issues a receipt to the driver and sends the license
to the DMV. In most states, the receipt serves as a temporary license, often
for seven days, to allow the offender to make other transportation arrangements.
This action, sure and swift, increases deterrence and has proven effective
in reducing alcohol-related fatal crashes. For more information, see
section on Administrative Licensing Actions.
Many jurisdictions also are employing other administrative actions aimed
at drunk drivers. For example, the arresting police officer, again acting
on behalf of the DMV, can suspend and seize vehicle tags or registration
of repeat DWI offenders. In some states, such as Maryland, California and
West Virginia, alcohol safety interlock programs are managed administratively
by the motor vehicle departments. Several vehicle impoundment and forfeiture
programs also are handled administratively.
In Minnesota, people arrested for drunk driving who have a previous offense
within 10 years or who have a BAC of .20 or higher will have their license
plates impounded and destroyed by a police officer acting as an agent of
the Department of Public Safety. Replacement plates are issued only when
the license revocation order has been rescinded after the mandatory minimum
impoundment period.
A study found Minnesota’s license plate impoundment law to be quite effective.
Violators who received a police-issued impoundment order had one-half the
recidivism rate as compared to similar offenders who did not receive this
order (Rodgers 1994). Originally, the Minnesota license plate impoundment
law was managed through the courts. However, after 29 months only 6 percent
of eligible offenders received this penalty. Subsequently, the law was amended
to allow for administrative management of the program through the Department
of Public Safety, and in the first 21 months approximately 68 percent of
eligible offenders had their plates impounded.
The most extensive current use of administratively imposed vehicle sanctions
is in the state of California. In 1995, two laws went into effect enabling
law enforcement officers to immediately impound for 30 days vehicles of
anyone driving with a suspended license. According to law enforcement agencies
throughout the state, more than 100,000 vehicles are being impounded each
year. An evaluation of the law showed among repeat offenders whose vehicles
were impounded, there were 34.2 percent fewer traffic convictions and 37.6
percent fewer crashes (DeYoung 1998).
That same year in San Francisco, 7,066 vehicles were impounded, and a traffic
offender fund generated $721,000 in administrative fees and collected an
additional $1 million from vehicle registration, citations and towing fees.
The San Francisco program resulted in increased DUI enforcement and a 26
percent reduction in total fatal and injury crashes (ICADTS 1997).
Administrative procedures generally involve the license and/or the vehicle,
while criminal procedures generally involve the driver. These administrative
procedures do not take the place of criminal proceedings against drunk drivers.
Every state has laws authorizing — and in some cases mandating — incarceration,
and all DWI cases covered by these laws are handled through the judicial
system. Offenders who are subject to administrative sanctions usually remain
subject to a separate criminal process, which could lead to additional penalties
and sanctions.
While both the criminal and administrative tracks can be effective methods
for dealing with hardcore drunk drivers, the key is to use a combination
of actions to bring about long-term behavior change. |
