NCJ Number
161335
Journal
Alcohol, Drugs and Driving Volume: 7 Issue: 3-4 Dated: (July-December 1991) Pages: 173-196
Date Published
1991
Length
24 pages
Annotation
This paper focuses on the effectiveness of the enforcement of DUI (driving under the influence) laws, with attention to a comparison of the enforcement procedures relevant to "impaired" laws and those that pertain to "per se" laws; the author analyzes some of the issues that will arise with the proposed increased reliance on per se laws and the lowering of prohibited blood alcohol concentration (BAC).
Abstract
The control of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States is based on two classes of law. One class prohibits operating a vehicle while the driver is "impaired" by alcohol. The second class of law is the per se law, which makes it an offense to operate or be in control of a vehicle while having a BAC at or above a certain level. Both of these types of laws provide for the use of a chemical test, generally a breath test; however, under impaired law, which requires a demonstration that the driver was unfit to drive as a result of drinking, the chemical test is accepted only as presumptive or prima facie evidence of impairment, which is subject to rebuttal by evidence that shows the individual's driving behavior was not affected by alcohol. The chemistry-based system that is founded on per se illegal- limit legislation as implemented in Australia essentially bypasses the issue of driver behavior. Vehicles are stopped at random, and once stopped, police officers administer a breath test by means of a portable device. Drivers found to be over the BAC limit are arrested and taken to the police station for a confirmatory test. Random stops at checkpoints are used sporadically in the United States; however, the drivers stopped are first examined for behavioral signs of alcohol impairment, and only where such signs are found are they detained for a breath test. Thus, per se laws in the United States are principally used to ease the prosecution of the driver determined by the police officer to be impaired. Portable breath test devices are used only to confirm the judgment of the officer in the field that the individual is impaired. The United States and Australia present an interesting contrast, since one is the world's leader in the field of assessment of behavioral impairment, and the other is the world's leader in the use of Random Breath Tests (RBT's) to identify drinking drivers. This paper examines legal limitations on the use of RBT's in the United States, as well as evidence for the effectiveness of checkpoints in the United States. The author then compares the Charlottesville (Virginia) and New South Wales (Australia) checkpoint programs. The analysis concludes that the RBT in New South Wales can be approached, if not duplicated, in the United States. The paper concludes with an outline of what needs to be done to enforce per se limits in the United States. 8 tables and 56 references