dui best sentencing practices guidebook - …...introduction table of contents i. philosophy of...

DUIS P E C I A L T H A N K S T O

D U I S U B C O M M I T T E E M E M B E R S :

Paul Boyden, Susan Burke, Chief Deputy Paul Cunningham,

Patty Fox, Tara Isaacson, Larry Petersen,

Judge John Sandberg, Joann Zaharias

G U I D E B O O K R E S E A R C H E D A N D W R I T T E N B Y :

Mike Haddon, Gary Franchina, and Ron Gordon

P R E P A R E D B Y :

Utah Sentencing Commission

Ron Gordon, Director

101 State Capitol • Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

(801) 538-1645 • www.sentencing.utah.gov

D U I B E S T S E N T E N C I N GP R A C T I C E S G U I D E B O O K

Go to Table of Contents

Go to Table of Contents

D U I B E S T S E N T E N C I N G P R A C T I C E S G U I D E B O O K

This DUI Best Sentencing Practices Guide-

book is intended to enhance rather than

erode the discretion of judges, prosecutors,

probation officers, and law enforcement offi-

cers. No manual can replace the experience

of these decision-makers, and no set of best

practices or guidelines can capture the vast

amount of variables present when dealing

with individual offenders. However, all crim-

inal justice professionals seek and profit from

the best information available. Many have

expressed a desire to know what sanctions

and interventions work with DUI offenders.

This guidebook is intended to provide just

that—the best information available con-

cerning sanctions and interventions for DUI

offenders. This guidebook should be consid-

ered a tool which will compliment the experi-

ence and knowledge of criminal justice

professionals who work with and sentence

DUI offenders.


Introduction

DUI Best Sentencing Practices Guidebook

The Utah Sentencing Commission establishes the following DUI Best

Sentencing Practices Guidebook. Shortly before the Governor’s

Council on Driving Under the Influence concluded its two-year study of

DUI issues in Utah, it made recommendations to twenty entities includ-

ing the Utah Sentencing Commission. Among other things, the Council

requested that the Sentencing Commission develop a best practices

guidebook that would address sentencing of DUI offenders and would be

targeted at judges, prosecutors, probation officers, and law enforcement

officers.

Introduction

Table of Contents

I. Philosophy of Sentencing ................I-1

II. Glossary of Terms............................II-1

III. Summary of DUI BestSentencing Practices .....................III-1

IV. Current Utah DUI Laws..................IV-1

A. Driving Under the Influence .....IV-1

B. Driving with any Measurable Controlled Substance in the Body ...................................IV-2

C. Alcohol-Related Reckless Driving .......................IV-2

D. Sanctions and Interventions.....IV-3

1) Incarceration ........................IV-3

2) Supervised Probation ...........IV-3

3) Electronic Monitoring...........IV-3

4) Ignition Interlock ..................IV-4

5) Fines .....................................IV-4

6) Compensatory Work Service Program ...................IV-4

7) Screening and Assessment ..........................IV-4

8) Education .............................IV-4

9) Treatment .............................IV-4

10) Driver License Actions ..........IV-5

E. DUI Sentencing Matrix .............IV-5

F. No Alcohol Conditional License ......................................IV-5

G. Not-A-Drop...............................IV-7

H. DUI Plea Restrictions................IV-8

V. Utah Statistics.................................V-1

VI. Sanctions and Interventions..........VI-1

A. Incarceration.............................VI-1

B. Probation..................................VI-3

C. Electronic Monitoring...............VI-4

D. Ignition Interlock ......................VI-4

E. Fines .........................................VI-6

F. Compensatory Work Service.............................VI-6

G. Screening and Assessment...............................VI-6

H. Education and Treatment .................................VI-7

I. License Confiscation and Other Vehicle Action Programs ..................................VI-9

J. Victim Impact Panels..............VI-11

VII. Conclusion ....................................VII-1

VIII. References ...................................VIII-1


Table of ContentsClick on title to navigate to section


The Sentencing Commission’s mission state-ment summarizes the purposes of sentencingas follows:

� punish the offender

� protect and compensate the victim andsociety

� reduce the likelihood of future crimesby the offender through rehabilitationand incapacitation.

Individual sanctions and interventions focuson and are intended to fulfill different pur-poses of sentencing. Each has strengths andweaknesses and very few are intended to ful-fill all of the above mentioned purposes.

Each sanction has its role and understandingthat role becomes a key to sentencing. Thisbest practices guidebook reviews numeroussentencing options and recognizes that nosingle sanction or intervention will work forevery offender. The Sentencing Commissionacknowledges this in a position statementaddressing individualized sentences:

Criminal punishment, including intermediatesanctions, should focus on the particular cir-cumstances of each situation.

a) The severity of an offense should bedetermined by actual harm done andintent of the offender.

b) Different sentencing approaches shouldbe applied depending on the offenders’individual circumstances.

This individualized sentencing approach is akey to sentencing DUI offenders.

Many of the studies reviewed in this guide-book measure the effectiveness of sanctionsand interventions in terms of repeat offensesor reduced alcohol-related crashes. Obvi-ously, reduced repeat offenses and reducedalcohol-related crashes are not the onlymeasures or purposes of sentencing thatshould be considered in sentencing a DUIoffender. They are often emphasized becausethey are measurable and because they aremajor goals of the criminal justice system.However, all purposes of sentencing shouldbe considered as part of the individualizedsentencing approach.

This guidebook makes several references tothe cost-effective nature of some sanctionsand interventions. A position statement ofthe Sentencing Commission recognizes thatthis is one of the many issues that merits dis-cussion:

Sentencing approaches should take intoaccount, without being controlled by, avail-able sanctioning resources and their relativecost-benefits.

In other words, cost is one of many relevantparts of the discussion on the use of particu-lar sanctions and interventions.

I. Philosophy of Sentencing

Back to Table of Contents

I - 1


I I - 1


Assessment An in-depth interview (one to two hours)used to determine if a person is in need ofsubstance abuse treatment. In Utah, thisassessment tool is the Addictions SeverityIndex (ASI), which can be self-administered.A licensed mental health therapist, however,must make the diagnosis, consistent withUtah law. Information gathered during theassessment process is used to determineneed for treatment, the level/intensity, andlength of care that a patient needs.

Blood or breath alcohol concentration (BAC)The amount of alcohol in one’s blood orbreath. Alcohol concentration in the blood isbased upon grams of alcohol per 100 milli-liters of blood while alcohol concentration inthe breath is based upon grams of alcoholper 21 liters of breath.

Driving under the influence (DUI)According to Utah Code Annotated § 41-6-44(2)(a), “a person may not operate or be inactual physical control of a vehicle within thisstate if the person: (i) has sufficient alcoholin his body that a subsequent chemical testshows that the person has a blood or breathalcohol concentration of .08 grams or greaterat the time of the test; (ii) is under the influ-ence of alcohol, any drug, or the combinedinfluence of alcohol and any drug to a degreethat renders the person incapable of safelyoperating a vehicle; or (iii) has a blood orbreath alcohol concentration of .08 grams orgreater at the time of operation or actualphysical control.”

EducationUtah requires the Prime for Life© educationalcourse for DUI offenders. The course isdesigned to explore and address any prob-lems or risk factors that appear to be relatedto use of alcohol or other drugs and to helpthe individual recognize the harmful conse-quences of inappropriate use. Specialemphasis is given to the dangers of drinkingand driving. Offenders may not appear tomeet the diagnostic criteria for a substanceabuse disorder, but require early interventionfor education and further assessment.

General deterrenceAs used in the guidebook, the term describesthe goal of discouraging the general popula-tion from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

High BACA BAC of .16 (twice the legal limit) or higher.

OffenderA person who has been convicted of DUI,driving with any measurable controlled sub-stance in the body, or alcohol-related reck-less driving.

ScreeningA quick (15 minute) and general appraisal ofa person used to determine if they might needto be referred to a licensed substance abuseagency for a substance abuse assessment inorder to determine a need for substanceabuse treatment. Screening tools such as theCAGE, an initial screening instrument, or theSubstance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory(SASSI) are commonly used.

II. Glossary of Terms


I I - 2


Specific deterrenceAs used in this guidebook, the term describesthe goal of discouraging an individual whohas been convicted of a DUI offense fromengaging in that behavior in the future.

TreatmentApplication of planned procedures to identifyand change patterns of behavior that aremaladaptive, destructive and/or injurious tohealth; or to restore appropriate levels ofphysical, psychological and/or social func-tioning. DUI offenders assessed as meetingthe diagnostic criteria for a substance abusedisorder shall be required to participate in atreatment program in addition to, or in lieuof, the educational course. The severity of the disorder shall determine the level oftreatment.


I I I - 1


Section III highlights the Best Practices asdiscussed throughout this guidebook and isintended as a quick reference. A thoroughreview of the detailed discussion in SectionsIV through VI is critical to understandingthese best practices.

Using This GuidebookReaders should consider information onsanctions and interventions together ratherthan reviewing a specific sanction or inter-vention and deciding whether or not it iseffective. Many sanctions may not reducerecidivism, but they do provide a mechanismfor controlling the offender’s behavior whileother interventions occur that are successfulin reducing recidivism.

Law Enforcement (see detaileddiscussion: IV-5, F; IV-7, G)

� Law enforcement officers must beaware of the no alcohol conditionallicense law and must enforce it.

� Law enforcement officers must beaware of the Not-A-Drop law and mustenforce it.

General Sentencing (VI-1)

� Before imposing sentence, judgesshould be aware of the BAC and thecriminal history of the offender andshould review the incident report.

Incarceration (VI-1, A)

� When a judge chooses to impose a jailsentence of 48 hours, the order shouldspecifically state “48 hours” in jailrather than “two days” in jail. Addition-ally, ordering that this jail time beserved when the jails are less crowdedwill increase the chances of the defen-dant serving the entire 48 hours.

� Judges should strongly consider jailsentences of six months for chronicoffenders who are not sentenced toprison.

Probation (VI-3, B)

� The effectiveness of probation in pre-venting DUI recidivism depends, inlarge part, on the conditions imposedand the level of supervision associatedwith the probation. Some conditions ofprobation may provide a mechanism forcontrolling the offender’s behaviorwhile other interventions, such as edu-cation and treatment, take place.

� Whenever possible, DUI probationersshould be supervised.

Electronic Monitoring (VI-4, C)

� Electronic monitoring is as effective asand less expensive than incarceration.Factors significantly related to successfor those utilizing electronic monitoringinclude attendance at treatment andsteady employment.

III. Summary of DUI Best Sentencing Practices


I I I - 2


Ignition Interlock (VI-4, D)

� Ignition interlock can be an effectiveDUI control mechanism to be usedwhile other interventions, such as edu-cation and treatment, are taking place.

� Responding to interlock failures canhelp prevent additional DUI offenses.

Fines (VI-6, E)

� If the purpose of the fine is to punish theoffender, full payment of fines in atimely manner should be emphasized.However, if the purpose of the fine is toencourage the offender to fulfill othercourt-ordered obligations, the practicesof crediting fines for compliance withthese obligations and extending thepayment period should not be dis-counted.

Compensatory Work Service (VI-6, F)

� Judges who choose to order compensa-tory work service should require serv-ice that provides some benefit to thecommunity or service that helps reduceinstances of driving under the influenceby the defendant or by other people.

Screening and Assessment (VI-6, G)

� Whenever possible, the local substanceabuse authority should perform thescreening and assessment and a sepa-rate licensed treatment provider shouldprovide the education and treatment.

Education and Treatment (VI-7, H)

� Controlling behavior while the offenderis undergoing treatment is critical tosuccessful recidivism reduction. Con-trol can be in the form of supervised

probation, electronic monitoring, igni-tion interlock, or license actions. Thiscontrol must be maintained during thesix to 18 months that are required totreat the DUI offender.

� The court should not order a particulareducation course or a particular treat-ment modality. Rather, the court shouldorder that the offender receive ascreening by a licensed treatmentprovider and participate in any assess-ment, education, and/or treatment rec-ommended by the treatment provider.Utah law requires that the court ordertreatment for felony convictions andthat the court order education for mis-demeanor convictions if treatment isnot ordered. Even in these circum-stances, the court should allow thelicensed treatment provider to deter-mine the education and/or treatmentprogram best suited for the individualoffender.

License and Vehicle Actions (VI-9, I)

� License suspensions must last at leastthree months to be effective in reducingrecidivism and the optimal suspensionperiod for recidivism reduction is 12 to18 months. This is consistent with Utahlaw requiring a 90-day suspension for afirst DUI violation and a one-year revo-cation for second or subsequent DUIviolations.

Victim Impact Panels (VI-11, J)

� Victim Impact Panels may be effectivefor first-time DUI offenders, but shouldnever replace other sanctions andinterventions.

I V - 1


A.Driving Under the Influence (UtahCode Ann. § 41-6-44)As noted in the definition section, Utah lawprohibits any person from “[operating] or[being] in actual physical control of a vehi-cle within this state if the person:”

� has enough alcohol in the body that atest administered at some point afterthe operation or physical control of thevehicle reveals a BAC of .08 or greater;

� is under the influence of any drug oralcohol or a combination of both suchthat the person is incapable of safelyoperating the vehicle; or

� has a BAC of .08 or greater at the timeof operation or physical control of thevehicle.

In other words, a person whose BAC is orexceeds .08 may not operate a vehicle orbe in control of a vehicle under any cir-cumstance. Even with a BAC less than .08,a person may not operate or be in controlof a vehicle if drugs or alcohol prevent theperson from safely operating the vehicle.

Categorization of Offenses1) A first or second DUI offense is a class

B misdemeanor unless an aggravatingfactor is present.

2) Aggravating factors that establish aclass A misdemeanor include the fol-lowing:

� offender caused bodily injury toanother; or

� offender had a passenger under 16years of age in the vehicle at the timeof the offense; or

IV. Current Utah DUI Laws

A 1st or 2nd DUI Offense is aCLASS B MISDEMEANOR

Aggravating factors that elevate a1st or 2nd DUI offense to aCLASS A MISDEMEANOR

� offender caused bodily injury to another;or

� offender had a passenger under 16 yearsof age in the vehicle at the time of theoffense; or

� offender was 21 years of age or older andhad a passenger under 18 years of age inthe vehicle at the time of the offense.

Aggravating factors that elevate a 1st or 2nd DUI offense to aTHIRD DEGREE FELONY

� offender caused serious bodily injury toanother; or

� offender was previously convicted ofautomobile homicide under Utah CodeAnn. § 76-5-207 and the automobilehomicide was committed after July 1,2001; or

� offender was previously convicted of anyfelony DUI offense.

A 1st or 2nd DUI offense is also aTHIRD DEGREE FELONY IF

� offender has two or more prior convictionswithin the last ten years. For purposes ofthis enhancement, “conviction” includes aconviction of any of the following:• DUI• alcohol-related reckless driving• driving with any measurable controlled

substance that is taken illegally• automobile homicide

CATEGORIZATION OF DUI OFFENSES



I V - 2


� offender was 21 years of age or olderand had a passenger under 18 yearsof age in the vehicle at the time of theoffense.

Any one of these aggravating factorsresults in a class A misdemeanor for afirst or second DUI offense.

3) Aggravating factors that establish a third degree felony for a first or second DUI offense include the follow-ing:

� offender caused serious bodily injuryto another; or

� offender was previously convicted ofautomobile homicide under UtahCode Ann. § 76-5-207 and the auto-mobile homicide was committedafter July 1, 2001; or

� offender was previously convicted ofany felony DUI offense.

Any of the factors above aggravates afirst or second DUI offense to a thirddegree felony.

4) A DUI offense is also a third degreefelony if:

� offender has two or more prior con-victions within the last ten years. Forpurposes of this enhancement, “con-viction” includes a conviction of anyof the following:

• DUI

• alcohol-related reckless driving

• driving with any measurable con-trolled substance that is takenillegally

• automobile homicide.

B. Driving with any Measurable Controlled Substance in the Body(Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(8), (9) and § 41-6-44.6)

Any person who operates or is in physicalcontrol of a motor vehicle while having anymeasurable, illegally consumed controlledsubstance in the person’s body is guilty ofa class B misdemeanor. If the prosecutoragrees, a defendant may plead guilty tothis crime in satisfaction of, or as a sub-stitute for, a DUI charge. A conviction ofthis crime is considered a prior convictionfor purposes of enhancing a third or sub-sequent DUI charge to a felony. The provi-sions in the DUI law regarding screening,assessment, education, and treatmentapply to driving with any measurable con-trolled substance in the body convictions.

C. Alcohol-Related Reckless Driving(Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(8), (9) and § 41-6-45)

Any person who “operates a vehicle inwillful or wanton disregard for the safetyof persons or property” is guilty of recklessdriving, a class B misdemeanor. UtahCode Ann. § 41-6-45(1)(a). Utah lawallows a defendant charged with DUI toplead guilty to reckless driving in satisfac-tion of, or as a substitute for, a DUI chargeif the prosecutor agrees. This is known asalcohol-related reckless driving. When adefendant pleads guilty to alcohol-relatedreckless driving, the prosecutor must stateon the record whether the defendant hadconsumed alcohol or drugs in connectionwith the violation. Alcohol-related reck-less driving is considered a prior convic-tion for purposes of enhancing a third orsubsequent DUI charge to a felony. Theprovisions in the DUI law regarding


I V - 3


screening, assessment, education, andtreatment apply to alcohol-related reck-less driving convictions.

D. Sanctions and Interventions1) Incarceration (Utah Code Ann.

§ 41-6-44):

For a first misdemeanor conviction, thecourt SHALL do one of the following:

� impose a jail sentence of not lessthan 48 consecutive hours; or

� require the person to work in a com-pensatory work service program fornot less than 48 hours; or

� require the offender to participate inhome confinement through the use ofelectronic monitoring.

For a second misdemeanor convictionwithin ten years, the court SHALL doone of the following:

� impose a jail sentence of not lessthan 240 consecutive hours; or

� require the offender to work in acompensatory work service programfor not less than 240 hours; or

� require the offender to participate inhome confinement through the use ofelectronic monitoring.

For a third or subsequent misdemeanoroffense within 10 years or for any felonyoffense, the court SHALL:

� sentence the offender to prison orimpose a jail sentence of not lessthan 1,500 hours.

2) Supervised Probation (Utah Code Ann. §41-6-44(14)):

One sentencing option for DUI defen-dants is supervised probation.

The court specifies the period of super-vised probation and the defendant paysthe cost.

The court provides the probation “bycontract with a probation monitoringagency or a private probation provider.”The probation provider “shall monitorthe person’s compliance with all condi-tions of the person’s sentence, condi-tions of probation, and courtorders…and shall notify the court ofany failure to comply with or completethat sentence or those conditions ororders.”

The court MAY order supervised probation for:

� a first misdemeanor conviction.

The court SHALL order supervised pro-bation for:

� a second misdemeanor conviction

� any misdemeanor conviction if theBAC of the defendant was .16 orhigher

� a felony conviction if the court doesnot impose a prison term.

3) Electronic Monitoring (Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44(13)):

The court MAY order the defendant to:

participate in home confinementthrough the use of electronic monitor-ing as an alternative to all or part of ajail sentence for a first or second mis-demeanor conviction. Additionally, ifthe court chooses to sentence a felonyDUI defendant to probation, the courtmay include electronic monitoring as acondition of probation.


I V - 4


The defendant must pay the costs ofelectronic monitoring unless the courtwaives those costs in which case theelectronic monitoring provider shallabsorb the costs.

As part of electronic monitoring, thecourt MAY:

� “require the person’s electronichome monitoring device to include asubstance abuse testing instru-ment;”

� “restrict the amount of alcohol theperson may consume during the timethe person is subject to home con-finement;” and

� “set specific time and location condi-tions that allow the person to attendschool, educational classes, oremployment and to travel directlybetween those activities and the per-son’s home.”

4) Ignition Interlock (Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44.7)

The court MAY order the installation ofan ignition interlock system for:

� any offender convicted of DUI who issentenced to probation.

The court SHALL order the installationof an ignition interlock system for:

� any offender convicted of DUI who isunder the age of 21 when the viola-tion occurred; or

� any offender convicted of a second orsubsequent DUI within 10 years of aprior conviction.

5) Fines (Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44):

The court SHALL impose a fine of:

� not less than $700 for a first misde-meanor conviction; or

� not less than $800 for a second mis-demeanor conviction; or

� not less than $1500 for a felony con-viction.

6) Compensatory Work Service Program(Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44):

The court MAY order the defendant to:

work in a compensatory work serviceprogram as an alternative to all or partof a jail sentence for a first or secondmisdemeanor conviction. The minimumnumber of compensatory work serviceprogram hours for a first misdemeanorconviction is 48 while the minimum fora second misdemeanor conviction is240.

7) Screening and Assessment (Utah CodeAnn. § 41-6-44):

The court SHALL order:

� every DUI offender to participate in ascreening and assessment.

8) Education (Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44)

For first and second time offenders thecourt SHALL order:

� the offender to participate in an edu-cational series if the court does notorder substance abuse treatment.

9) Treatment (Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44):

The court MAY order:

� substance abuse treatment for a firstor second offense.

The court SHALL order:

� substance abuse treatment for athird or subsequent conviction or forany other felony conviction.

I V - 5


10) Driver License Actions (Utah Code Ann. §41-6-44(11)):

The Driver License Division SHALL:

� suspend the offender’s license for 90days upon a first DUI conviction; and

� revoke the offender’s license for oneyear upon a second or subsequentDUI conviction.

The court MAY:

� order an additional suspension orrevocation of the offender’s licensefor a period of 90 days, 180 days,one year or two years.

E. DUI Sentencing MatrixThe chart on page IV-6, is a DUI Sentenc-ing Matrix that provides an overview ofDUI laws in Utah by listing what the courtshall order and may order in DUI casesand by noting special sentences requiredfor offenders with a high BAC. The matrixaddresses numerous parts of a DUI defen-dant’s sentence including jail or prison,compensatory service, electronichome confinement, fines, screen-ing, assessment, educationalseries, treatment, supervised pro-bation, ignition interlock andlicense suspension.

Also included in the DUI Sentencing Matrixis a summary of what conduct constitutesa class B misdemeanor DUI offense, classA misdemeanor DUI offense, and a felonyDUI offense.

The matrix is not a substitute for familiar-ity with the statute, but is an excellent ref-erence tool.

F. No Alcohol Conditional License(Utah Code Ann. § 53-3-232)Drivers previously convicted of a DUIoffense are more likely than other driversto be subsequently arrested for a DUIoffense (Brewer et al. 1994). This fact hasled several states, including Utah, to enactzero tolerance policies for those convictedof DUI. Utah law mandates that the DriverLicense Division issue a no alcohol condi-tional license to any person convicted of aqualifying offense once that person hascompleted any applicable license suspen-sions or revocations, or upon conviction ifno suspensions or revocations result fromthe conviction.

➚Driver licenses display informationregarding no alcohol conditional status.



I V - 6


DUI Sentencing Matrix(Current as of the 2003 General Session)

FIRST OFFENSE SECOND OFFENSEWITHIN 10 YEARS

THIRD OR SUBSEQUENTOFFENSE WITHIN 10 YEARS

*See §41-6-44(13) for Electronic Home Confinement provisions**See §41-6-44(14) for Supervised Probation provisions ***See §41-6-44.7 for Ignition Interlock provisionsNOTE: Supervised probation is also required for all violations of §41-6-44.6 (DUI Drugs)

High BAC:(.16 or higher)

• SHALL order supervisedprobation

• If no treatment, interlock orhome confinement, reasonsmust be stated on the record

SHALL order supervised probation

SHALL order supervised probation if 0-5 prision termis not imposed

Ignition interlock:***

MAY order ignition interlock SHALL order ignition interlock(3 years)

SHALL order ignition interlock(3 years)

Probation: ** MAY order supervisedprobation

SHALL order supervised probation

SHALL order supervised probation if 0-5 prison term isnot imposed

Other – SHALLorder:

• Screening & assessment• Educational Series, unless

treatment is ordered• MAY order treatment

• Screening & assessment• Educational Series, unless

treatment is ordered• MAY order treatment

• Screening & assessment• Intensive treatment or

inpatient treatment andaftercare for not less than240 hours

Fine – SHALLorder:

SENTENCINGJail – SHALLorder:

$700 minimum plus surcharge

$800 minimum plus surcharge

$1,500 minimum, unless 0-5prison term is imposed

48 consecutive hours OR48 hours compensatoryservice ORelectronic home confinement*

240 consecutive hours OR240 hours compensatoryservice ORelectronic home confinement*

0-5 year prison term OR1,500 hours jail (62.5 days)May also require electronichome confinement*

CLASSIFICATION CLASS B MISDEMEANORBECOMES A CLASS A:• if bodily injury inflicted• if passenger is under 16• if passenger is under 18 and

driver is 21 or older

THIRD DEGREE FELONY:• if serious bodily injury

CLASS B MISDEMEANORBECOMES A CLASS A:• if bodily injury inflicted• if passenger under 16• if passenger under 18 and

driver is 21 or older

THIRD DEGREE FELONY:• if any prior felony DUI

conviction or automobilehomicide conviction

• if serious bodily injury

3RD DEGREE FELONY

License suspension:

Court MAY order additional90 DAYS, 180 DAYS,1 YEAR OR 2 YEARS




I V - 7


Qualifying Offenses Include:

� DUI

� Alcohol-related reckless driving

� Driving with any measurable controlledsubstance in the body

� Automobile homicide

A No Alcohol Conditional License meansexactly what it says. The holder of this typeof license is prohibited from operating amotor vehicle or motorboat with any alco-hol in the person’s body regardless ofwhether the person’s BAC exceeds thelegal limit or not. These restrictionsremain in place for two years following afirst qualifying conviction or six years fol-lowing a second or subsequent conviction.

The no alcohol conditional license con-tains a code that alerts law enforcement tothese restrictions, a violation of which is aclass B misdemeanor.

In order for Utah’s conditional license tobe effective, law enforcement officersmust be aware of the law and must enforceit. To assist law enforcement officers inthis effort, driver licenses in Utah cur-rently display information regarding theirconditional status. Such status is noted on

the back of the license in the bottom right-hand corner with the words “ConditionalLicense Until [date].” Any driver with thisnotation is prohibited from driving with

any amount of alcohol in their body. Ongo-ing training regarding the no alcohol con-ditional license will also be a criticalcomponent of its success.

A similar law was established in Maine in1988. Under Maine law, the legal BAClevel was set to .05, nearly half the normallegal BAC limit, for those drivers previ-ously convicted of a DUI offense. The lawwas subsequently modified in 1995 to pro-hibit these offenders from driving with anyalcohol in the body. After tracking the lawfor six years, researchers discovered a25% decrease in fatal crashes involvingdrivers previously convicted of DUIoffenses. This finding is even more inter-esting when compared to the 50%increase in similar crashes that occurredin surrounding states during the sametime period (Hingson & Heeren 1999;Hingson 1996).

G. Not-A-Drop (Utah Code Ann. § 53-3-231) Younger than 21 Years of AgeA zero tolerance policy exists for all driv-ers younger than 21 years of age. A driverin this age group may not operate a motorvehicle or motorboat with any amount ofalcohol in the body. A first violation resultsin a 90-day license suspension while asecond or subsequent violation withinthree years results in a one-year licensesuspension.

Law enforcement officers must beaware of the no alcohol conditional

license law and must enforce it.

BEST PRACTICES

Law enforcement officers must be aware of the Not-A-Drop

law and must enforce it.

BEST PRACTICES


I V - 8


Several rationales support this policy:

� Drivers in this age group may notlegally consume alcohol. (This factalone merits a zero tolerance policy).

� Younger drivers are likely to becomeimpaired faster and the effects of alco-hol are likely to be more pronounced,thus enhancing the danger of drivingwith even a small amount of alcohol inthe body.

� Younger drivers lack driving experienceand are more likely to take risks withtheir driving. Alcohol use, which lowersinhibitions, may add to their tendencyto take risks.

� Early action must be taken with youthengaging in the dangerous behavior ofdrinking and driving in an effort to dis-courage such behavior in the future.

The success of this law will depend onawareness and enforcement by lawenforcement officers.

H.DUI Plea Restrictions (Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-43.8)Utah law prohibits a court from acceptinga plea of guilty or no contest to a DUIcharge unless one of the following occurs:

� the prosecutor agrees to the plea; or

� the charge is filed by information; or

� the court receives verification from alaw enforcement agency that the defen-dant’s driver license record contains norecord of a conviction, arrest, or chargefor an alcohol-related driving offensethat would enhance the current chargeto a felony.

This law, passed during the 2003 GeneralSession, seeks to prevent defendants frompleading guilty to a misdemeanor DUIcharge that should be enhanced to a felonydue to prior DUI convictions.

This plea practice has happened when adefendant with a history of DUI offensesquickly pleads guilty to a misdemeanorDUI citation, knowing that the quick turn-around will not allow sufficient time forlaw enforcement or prosecutors to reviewthe defendant’s criminal history.

The result has been that the defendant ispermitted to plead guilty to a misde-meanor when the charge should be afelony. The new law on plea restrictionswill help ensure that DUI defendants arecharged appropriately.

V - 1


The Utah Commission on Criminaland Juvenile Justice conducted abrief analysis of DUI arrests between1990 and 2000. During the yearsexamined, a total of 143,514 arrestswere reported, committed by 102,528different individuals.

The ratio of DUI arrests to totalarrests remained relatively consistentover the period, varying from 7.7% to10.0%. Of the arrestees, 83% weremale and 17% were female. Three-quarters of the arrestees were underthe age of 40, with most in their twen-ties.

About three-quarters of the offendershad only one DUI arrest during theperiod examined. The remainder hadtwo or more DUI arrests. However,due to repeat offending, one-quarterof the offenders were responsible fornearly half of the DUI arrests.

Focusing specifically on the repeatDUI offenders, data shows that aboutthree-quarters were re-arrestedwithin three years, and 90% wererearrested within five years. Thisgroup of repeat offenders was morelikely to be male and slightly youngerat the time of their first arrest.

Finally, for those cases with areported adjudication date, the analy-sis found that about one-third wereprocessed within 30 days of thearrest. Two-thirds of the cases wereprocessed within 90 days of arrest.Almost all of the cases wereprocessed by the time one year hadelapsed.

V. Utah Statistics

TOTAL DUI OFFENDERS 1990-2000

REPEAT DUIOFFENDERS

29%FIRST TIME DUI OFFENDERS

71%

About three-quarters of the offenders had onlyone DUI arrest during the period examined.

TOTAL DUI ARRESTS 1990-2000

ARRESTS OFREPEAT

OFFENDERS

46%(29% OF TOTAL

DUI OFFENDERS)

ARRESTS OFFIRST TIMEOFFENDERS

54%

About one-quarter of the offenders wereresponsible for nearly half of the DUI arrests.



Three points are critical to understandingand successfully using the following materialregarding specific sanctions and interven-tions. First, no sanction or interventionworks for all offenders in all circumstances.Unfortunately, there simply is no “silver bul-let” approach to working with DUI offenders.Furthermore, there is no outline to follow forrehabilitating a DUI offender. Each offenderpresents a unique set of circumstances andeach sentence will likewise need to be indi-vidualized.

Second, research routinely shows that amulti-modal approach involving a combina-tion of various sanctions and interventions ismost effective in reducing subsequent DUIoffenses and alcohol-related crashes. Read-ers should consider information on sanctionsand interventions together rather thanreviewing a specific sanction or interventionand deciding whether or not it is effective.Many sanctions may not reduce recidivism,but they do provide a mechanism for control-ling the offender’s behavior while other inter-

ventions occur that are successful in reduc-ing recidivism.

Third, many factors, other than the effective-ness of particular sanctions and interven-tions, will be relevant at sentencing. Forinstance, before imposing sentence, judgesshould be aware of the BAC and the criminalhistory of the offender and should review theincident report. These factors will assistjudges in fashioning appropriate sentences.

A. IncarcerationThe primary purposes of incarceration areto punish the offender and to preventfuture criminal behavior through incapaci-tation. In other words, judges sometimessentence DUI offenders to jail to punishthem and other times to prevent futureDUI offenses while the offender is incar-cerated. Courts may also use short jailsentences for specific deterrence in aneffort to “shock” an offender into changinghis or her ways.

Researchers have analyzed the effective-ness of mandatory jail laws for DUI offend-ers and the effects of various lengths ofincarceration. Research that studied a1982 Arizona statute, considered by mostto be quite punitive, had some compellingresults (Ross et al. 1990). The Arizona law

VI. Sanctions and Interventions

Before imposing sentence, judges should be aware of the BAC

and the criminal history of theoffender and should review the

incident report.

BEST PRACTICES

Readers should consider informationon sanctions and interventions

together rather than reviewing aspecific sanction or intervention and

deciding whether or not it iseffective. Many sanctions may not

reduce recidivism, but they doprovide a mechanism for controllingthe offender’s behavior while other

interventions occur that aresuccessful in reducing recidivism.

BEST PRACTICES

V I - 1



required jail time for all convicted DUIoffenders, even first-time offenders. Theprogram received extensive publicity priorto its implementation with the anticipationof effective general deterrence. However,research found that the mandatory incar-ceration law had no effect on the numberof DUI offenses or alcohol related-trafficdeaths. This finding was supported by sim-ilar studies of the same statute. One pos-sible explanation for the ineffectiveness ofmandatory jail terms is the low possibilityof being caught—general deterrence willnot occur if the targeted population doesnot perceive a risk of being arrested.

Utah law does not mandate jail for all first-time DUI offenders. Rather, a jail sentenceof not less than 48 hours is one sentenc-ing option for first-time offenders. Whileincarceration is effective at controlling theoffender’s behavior, many other sanctionsare equally effective in this regard and lessexpensive. Thus, deciding whether toimpose a jail sentence for a first-time DUIoffender will likely involve consideration ofthe offender’s BAC and criminal history aswell as the need for punishment. When ajudge chooses to impose a jail sentence of48 hours, the order should specifically

state “48 hours” in jail rather than “twodays” in jail. Because the definition of “twodays” is more flexible than the definition of“48 hours,” offenders ordered to serve twodays in jail often serve less than 48 hours.Additionally, ordering that this jail time beserved when the jails are less crowded willincrease the chances of the defendantserving the entire 48 hours.

Of course, incarceration becomes anincreasingly important sentencing optionfor chronic offenders. For these offenders,specific deterrence rather than generaldeterrence becomes a primary focus.Some studies have attempted to find anoptimal incarceration threshold whichwould identify effective rather than exces-sive punishment. Finding such a thresholdwould save public funds by keeping DUIoffenders in jail long enough to reduce thechances of future DUI offenses, but notlonger than necessary.

One particular study analyzed chronic DUIoffenders with an average of three DUIconvictions per individual and an averagesentence length of nine months (Weinrath& Gartrell 2001). The analysis revealedthat offenders who served less than fourmonths in jail or prison were the mostlikely to reoffend. The analysis alsoshowed that the effects of specific deter-rence appeared to plateau at five to sixmonths. The authors suggest a model sen-tence length of six months for chronicoffenders. Of course, this suggested sen-tence length is based solely on the rela-tionship between incarceration and repeatoffenses. Other considerations, such asthe number of prior convictions, injury toother people, or damage to property maydemand consideration of a longer sen-tence as well as commitment to prison

V I - 2

When a judge chooses to impose a jail sentence of 48 hours, the

order should specifically state “48hours” in jail rather than “two days”

in jail. Additionally, ordering thatthis jail time be served when the

jails are less crowded will increasethe chances of the defendant serving the entire 48 hours.

BEST PRACTICES



rather than jail. There is no establisheddefinition of chronic offender. Factorsconsidered in the determination of whichoffenders are chronic include the numberof DUI offenses and the time period inwhich those offenses occurred.

The authors did not promote incarcerationas the most effective sanction for DUIoffenders, but argue that an appropriateperiod of incarceration can have a positivespecific deterrent effect. Judges shouldstrongly consider jail sentences of sixmonths for chronic offenders who are notsentenced to prison.

B. ProbationProbation exists as an alternative to incar-ceration. It permits an offender to bereleased into the community under a set ofconditions imposed by the judge in lieu ofjail or prison or in conjunction with ashortened jail term. If the offender violatesa condition of probation, the judge mayrevoke the probation status and imposethe suspended jail or prison term. Theconditions may be tailored to the individ-ual offender, but often include things suchas education and/or treatment as deemednecessary by a licensed treatmentprovider, community service, electronicmonitoring, ignition interlock, and absti-nence from alcohol. Many of these possi-ble conditions of probation will be

discussed in detail in this guidebook.

Some have argued that keeping DUIoffenders out of jail and supervised on pro-bation is effective in reducing recidivism.The primary argument supporting thisviewpoint is that offenders on probationcan be monitored for alcohol consump-tion, treatment, employment, etc. An addi-tional argument made in favor of probationis that jail is not a cost-effective approachto reducing recidivism. These argumentsdo not address a particular offender’s needfor punishment or incapacitation andlikely apply more to first-time DUI offend-ers than chronic offenders. A meta-analy-sis of treatment programs for DUIoffenders evaluated probation combinedwith treatment programs (Wells-Parker etal. 1988). The study concluded that proba-tion with treatment can help reduce DUIrecidivism.

The effectiveness of probation in prevent-ing DUI recidivism depends, in large part,on the conditions imposed and the level ofsupervision associated with the probation.The study addressed above found proba-tion to be effective when combined with

V I - 3

The effectiveness of probation inpreventing DUI recidivism depends,

in large part, on the conditionsimposed and the level of supervision

associated with the probation. Some conditions of probation may

provide a mechanism for controllingthe offender’s behavior while other interventions, such as

education and treatment, take place.

BEST PRACTICES

Judges should strongly consider jail sentences of six months

for chronic offenders who are notsentenced to prison.

BEST PRACTICES




treatment. Some conditions of probationsuch as driver license actions, electronicmonitoring, or ignition interlock, as dis-cussed later in this guidebook, may pro-vide a mechanism for controlling theoffender’s behavior while other interven-tions, such as education and treatment,take place.

Supervision of DUI probationers will alsoplay a role in the effectiveness of probationas offenders will realize that the condi-tions are being monitored and that fulfill-ment of those conditions is essential toavoid incarceration or other sanctions.Budget constraints may impact which DUIoffenders are actively supervised. How-ever, whenever possible, DUI probationersshould be supervised. Consistent withUtah law, repeat DUI probationers must besupervised.

C. Electronic MonitoringElectronic monitoring has been touted bysome as a less costly and more effectiveform of controlling and punishing con-victed DUI offenders when compared tosome sanctions, particularly incarcera-tion. The purpose of the monitoring is toenforce “house arrest” as a form of pun-ishment, as well as incapacitation andspecific deterrence.

One particular study looked at DUI offend-ers sentenced to electronic monitoringand a control group sentenced to incarcer-

ation (Courtright et al. 2000). The studyfound no significant differences betweenthe two groups. In other words, electronicmonitoring was found to be as effective asincarceration. Factors significantly relatedto success for those utilizing electronic

monitoring include attendance at treat-ment and steady employment.

The fact that electronic monitoring is lessexpensive than, and as effective as, incar-ceration makes it an attractive sentencingoption for the State of Utah. (The costeffectiveness is especially attractive con-sidering that current law requires theoffender to pay the costs of electronicmonitoring.) It is also attractive when con-sidering the overcrowded conditions ofmany jails. One effect that electronic mon-itoring may not provide is the “shock” ele-ment of being incarcerated.

D. Ignition InterlockIgnition interlock is a technologicaladvance in DUI control. The ignition inter-lock device is installed in a vehicle and thedriver must blow into the device before thevehicle can be started. If the interlockdetects alcohol above a prescribed limit,

V I - 4

Whenever possible, DUI probationers should

be supervised.

BEST PRACTICES

Electronic monitoring is as effectiveas and less expensive than

incarceration. Factors significantlyrelated to success for those

utilizing electronic monitoringinclude attendance at treatment

and steady employment.

BEST PRACTICES



the ignition of the vehicle is disabled, thuspreventing drunken driving. Over theyears, several improvements have beenmade to these devices, such as datarecorders that record the date and time offailures and anti-tamper systems that helpin assuring the device is not disabled orotherwise tampered with (Coben & Larkin1999).

Research has shown ignition interlockdevices to be effective in reducing DUI-related recidivism. This beneficial effectdoes not appear to be any differentbetween first-time, low-risk and repeat,high-risk DUI offenders (Coben & Larkin1999; Beck & Rauch 1999; Voas, et al.

1999; Voas, et al. 2002; Marques, et al.1999). However, a few studies saw strongdecreases in effectiveness once the devicewas removed from the vehicle (Voas, et al.1999, Beck & Rauch 1999). This researchsuggests ignition interlock can be an effec-tive DUI control mechanism to be usedwhile other interventions, such as educa-tion and treatment, are taking place.

In one jurisdiction studied, the court pre-sented DUI offenders with the option ofhaving ignition interlocks installed ontheir vehicles in lieu of incarceration orelectronically monitored house arrest.

Interestingly, with this apparent unevenchoice, only 62% of the offenders choseignition interlock. Still, with 38% of thosequalifying for the device choosing not tohave it installed, the jurisdiction realizedgreater reductions in DUI recidivism whencompared to another jurisdiction withoutthe choice of using the interlock device(Voas, et al. 2002).

Data recorders, used in tandem with igni-tion interlock, help establish patterns ofhigh-risk times for DUI offending and DUIrecidivism. Looking at the date and timewhen ignition interlock failures occur,researchers have found the device hasbeen successful in blocking drinking anddriving during the high-risk periods ofevenings and weekends (Marques, et al.1999). Research has also found that com-bining the variables of multiple-prior DUIsand a high number of interlock warningsand failures during the first five months ofinstallation can predict more than 60% of

repeat DUI offenses (Marques, et al.2001). This link between interlock failuresand repeat DUI offenses provides proba-tion officers with an additional tool in thesupervision of DUI offenders as it suggeststhe need for heightened supervision oradditional intervention following an inter-lock failure. Responding to these warningsigns can help prevent additional DUIoffenses.

V I - 5

Responding to interlock failures can help prevent DUI offenses.

BEST PRACTICES

Ignition interlock can be an effectiveDUI control mechanism to be

used while other interventions, such as education and treatment,

are taking place.

BEST PRACTICES



E. FinesResearch on the use of fines in criminalsentencing in the United States is scarce.Some have suggested that problems withfines in the United States include the prac-tices of suspending fines and allowingfines to be paid over long periods of timeso that the impact of the fine is weakened.Others have suggested that the practice of“crediting” fines for compliance with otherparts of the court order (for example,reducing the fine when the defendantattends treatment) or extending the pay-ment period encourages offenders to fulfillother parts of the court order that haveproven effective in reducing recidivism.

Any best practices regarding fines wouldneed to be based on something other thantheir ability or inability to reduce recidi-vism since that remains unknown. If thepurpose of the fine is to punish theoffender, full payment of fines in a timelymanner should be emphasized. However,if the purpose of the fine is to encouragethe offender to fulfill other court-orderedobligations, the practices of crediting fines

for compliance with these obligations andextending the payment period should notbe discounted.

F. Compensatory Work ServiceCompensatory work service is anotherarea that has not been extensively studied.Judges who choose to order compensatorywork service should require service that

provides some benefit to the community orservice that helps reduce instances ofdriving under the influence by the defen-dant or by other people. However, itseffects on the offender are unknown.

G. Screening and AssessmentCurrent law might be interpreted as sug-gesting that screening and assessment arethe same instrument or the same process.Actually, they are two separate processesand involve separate instruments. Thescreening is a quick, general appraisal ofthe person used to determine if a more in-depth assessment is required by identify-ing indicators of substance abuse orsubstance dependence. If the screeningconcludes that an assessment is not nec-essary, the offender will likely require onlyeducation. If the screening concludes thatan assessment is necessary, the assess-ment will determine whether a substance

V I - 6

If the purpose of the fine is to punish the offender, full payment offines in a timely manner should be

emphasized. However, if the purposeof the fine is to encourage the

offender to fulfill other court-orderedobligations, the practices of

crediting fines for compliance withthese obligations and extending

the payment period should not be discounted.

BEST PRACTICES

Judges who choose to ordercompensatory work service shouldrequire service that provides somebenefit to the community or service

that helps reduce instances ofdriving under the influence by the

defendant or by other people.

BEST PRACTICES


abuse problem exists. The treatmentprovider can then decide on an appropri-ate treatment program.

Ideally, different entities will perform (1)the screening and assessment and (2) anyeducation or treatment. This avoids per-ceived and real conflicts of interest andshould give the court greater comfort inallowing the licensed treatment provider todetermine the type and extent of treat-ment. Wherever possible, the local sub-stance abuse authority should perform thescreening and assessment and a separatelicensed treatment provider should providethe education and treatment. Of course,this practice is not possible in all areas ofthe state due to limited licensed substance

abuse treatment providers outside of thelocal substance abuse authority.

H.Education and TreatmentEducation and treatment have differentaims and are used with different types ofoffenders. Education addresses any prob-

lems or risk factorsthat appear to be relat-ed to use of alcoholand other drugs andattempts to help the in-dividual recognize theharmful consequencesof inappropriate usewith special emphasisplaced on the dangersof drinking and driving.Offenders participatingin education may notappear to have a sub-stance abuse or sub-stance dependence dis-order, but still requireearly intervention.


V I - 7

Wherever possible, the localsubstance abuse authority should

perform the screening andassessment and a separate licensedtreatment provider should provide

the education and treatment.

BEST PRACTICES

Screening

Possible substancedependence or

abuse not detected

Possible substancedependence

or abuse detected

No substancedependence or

abuse

Substancedependence or

abuse

Assessment

Education

Treatment



Treatment involves the application ofplanned procedures to identify and changepatterns of behavior that are maladaptive,destructive, and/or injurious to health; orto restore appropriate levels of physical,psychological and/or social functioning.DUI offenders assessed as meeting thediagnostic criteria for a substance use dis-order should participate in a treatmentprogram in addition to, or in lieu of, theeducational course.

It is important to remember that many DUIoffenders have substance abuse problemsthat go beyond alcohol. In fact, DUI goesbeyond alcohol and includes driving underthe influence of any drug that causesimpairment. These abuses can and shouldalso be addressed in treatment. Becausethe assessment determines the severity ofthe disorder and the severity of the disor-der determines the level of treatment, thecourt should not order a particular treat-ment program prior to an assessment con-ducted by a licensed treatment provider.

Unfortunately, most research evaluateseducation and treatment together asthough they are the same, making it diffi-cult to draw conclusions about the effec-tiveness specifically of education.Treatments vary in modality, but mostattempt to curb the behavior of theoffender by reducing or controllingdependence on alcohol and other sub-stances. Previous research indicates thatabout one-third of DUI offenders are“problem-drinkers” while the remainingtwo-thirds are “social drinkers.” Whiletreatment providers dispute whether theseratios of problem drinkers and socialdrinkers are accurate, they do agree thatproblem-drinkers are generally candidates

for treatment while social drinkers arecandidates for education (Voas & Fisher2001).

Researchers reviewing 215 studies on DUIremediation found a 7% to 9% decreaseboth in DUI recidivism and alcohol-relatedcrashes. The same researchers concludedthe interventions that appeared to havethe greatest impact on recidivism werethose that combined multiple modalities,such as education, psychotherapy/coun-seling, and follow-up via probation (Wells-Parker & Bangert-Drowns 1995,Wells-Parker 1994).

V I - 8

The court should not order aparticular education course or aparticular treatment modality.Rather, the court should order

that the offender receive a screeningby a licensed treatment provider

and participate in any assessment,education, and/or treatment

recommended by the treatmentprovider. Utah law requires that the

court order treatment for felonyconvictions and that the court order

education for misdemeanorconvictions if treatment is not

ordered. Even in thesecircumstances, the court should

allow the licensed treatmentprovider to determine the education

and/or treatment program bestsuited for the individual offender.

BEST PRACTICES



This guidebook will not go so far as to pre-scribe the types of treatments that shouldbe used with offenders exhibiting certaincharacteristics. However, research doesindicate that various approaches includingcognitive-behavioral, pharmacological,and educational have proven effective withDUI offenders (Kadden 1994, AlcoholResearch & Health 2000). Research hasalso found that mandated treatment for anunwilling participant has a small, but pos-itive effect on reducing DUI recidivism(Wells-Parker 1994). One well-knownintervention for those with substanceabuse problems is Alcoholics Anonymousand similar support groups. Personal tes-timonials of the effectiveness of this typeof support group abound though researchon its effectiveness is scarce. As with allinterventions, it is likely more effective forsome people than for others. Though Alco-

holics Anonymous is considered by manytreatment providers to be neither an edu-cational tool nor a treatment modality, thetreatment provider, rather than the court,should make decisions regarding its use ina treatment program.

Controlling behavior while the offender isundergoing treatment is critical to suc-cessful recidivism reduction. Control canbe in the form of supervised probation,electronic monitoring, ignition interlock,or license actions. This control must bemaintained during the six to 18 monthsrequired to treat the DUI offender (Addic-tion 2001, Deyoung 1997).

The court should not order a particulareducation course or a particular treatmentmodality. Rather, the court should orderthat the offender receive a screening by alicensed treatment provider and partici-pate in any assessment, education, and/ortreatment recommended by the treatmentprovider. Utah law requires that the courtorder treatment for felony convictions andthat the court order education for misde-meanor convictions if treatment is notordered. Even in these circumstances, thecourt should allow the licensed treatmentprovider to determine the educationand/or treatment program best suited forthe individual offender.

I. License Confiscation and Other Vehicle Action ProgramsMany researchers argue that driverlicense suspension, license plate confisca-tion, and vehicle impoundments are themost cost-effective sanctions for reducingrecidivism and crashes involving DUIoffenders, and in reforming repeat drunkdrivers. One author who makes this argu-ment conducted a meta-analysis ofresearch on DUI sanctions which foundthat these sanctions are most effective inaccomplishing general deterrence and arethe most economical sanctions (Ross1991).

V I - 9

Controlling behavior while theoffender is undergoing treatment is

critical to successful recidivismreduction. Control can be in

the form of supervised probation,electronic monitoring, ignition

interlock, or license actions. Thiscontrol must be maintained duringthe six to 18 months required to

treat the DUI offender.

BEST PRACTICES



Other research reviewed a collection ofstudies focusing on the effectiveness ofthree vehicle action programs in sixstates: driver license suspension, licenseplate revocation and vehicle impound-ment/forfeiture (Voas & DeYoung 2002).The authors concluded that while all threevehicle action programs can be effective,driver license suspension was the mosteffective of those reviewed in reducingrecidivism and crashes involving DUIoffenders. While the authors concede thatmany offenders continue to drive on sus-pended licenses, it was found that most ofthose who do drive on a suspended licensedrive less, drive more carefully, and areless likely to drive while intoxicated. Fur-ther research found that license suspen-sions must last at least three months to beeffective in reducing recidivism and thatthe optimal suspension period for recidi-

vism reduction is 12 to 18 months. This isconsistent with Utah law requiring a 90-day suspension for a first DUI violationand a one-year revocation for second orsubsequent DUI violations. (National High-way Traffic Safety Administration 1996).

There are several studies that detail thespecifics of license plate revocations andlook at the laws designed to enforce thesanction. One study analyzed the effective-ness of a Minnesota law that allowedpolice officers to confiscate registrationand license plates of cars at the point ofarrest (Ross et al. 1996). The law wascompared to the previous law thatrequired an administrative process initi-ated by the courts. The adoption of thepolice confiscation procedure at point ofarrest resulted in more than a 10-foldincrease in confiscations over the previouscourt-ordered process. The previousprocess averaged 19 confiscations permonth. During the first nine months of thenew law, the average was 219 confisca-tions per month. The authors cited numer-ous studies that demonstrate theeffectiveness of confiscations and con-cluded that its increased use will result ina lower recidivism rate for DUI offenders.One major requirement for the implemen-tation of license plate confiscation is accu-rate and automated records of criminalhistory, accessible to police in the field inorder to take appropriate courses ofaction at the point of arrest.

V I - 1 0

License suspensions must last at least three months to be effective

in reducing recidivism and theoptimal suspension period for

recidivism reduction is 12 to 18months. This is consistent with Utahlaw requiring a 90-day suspension

for a first DUI violation and a one-year revocation for second or

subsequent DUI violations.

BEST PRACTICES



J. Victim Impact PanelsVictim Impact Panels (VIPs) were initiatedby Mothers Against Drunk Driving(MADD) to evoke an intense emotionalincentive to stop convicted DUI offendersfrom future drunk driving behavior. TheVIPs involve presentations by individualsseriously injured or whose loved oneswere killed in drunk driving crashes. Pre-senters discuss the impact the significantloss had on their lives (DeBaca et al.2001). It is hoped that convicted DUIoffenders will change their behavior whenthey understand the potential impact theirdrinking and driving may have on otherpeople.

Results of analysis on the effectiveness ofVIPs are mixed. Fairly consistent are find-ings that DUI offenders’ perceptions areimpacted after attending VIP sessions. Theoffenders lose their desire to drink anddrive (Sprang 1997, Polacsek et al. 2001,Fors & Rojek 1999). However, some stud-ies have found that in the longer-term,VIPs had no impact on re-arrest ratesamong both first-time and repeat DUIoffenders (Polacsek et al. 2001, DeBaca etal. 2001), while other studies show mod-est, positive outcomes, especially for first-time offenders (Fors & Rojek 1999,DeBaca et al. 2000). With the effective-ness uncertain, Victim Impact Panels, atbest, should only be used in conjunctionwith, rather than in place of, other provenDUI interventions. If used, VIPs shouldgenerally be considered as a small portionof a first-time DUI offender’s intervention.

V I - 1 1

Victim Impact Panels may beeffective for first-time DUI offenders,

but should never replace othersanctions and interventions.

BEST PRACTICES



AAs stated previously, this guidebook does not attempt to identify

the one sanction or intervention that will be effective for all DUI

offenders. Nor does it identify a rehabilitation outline for all DUI offend-

ers. Rather, this guidebook recognizes that all DUI offenders are unique

individuals with unique circumstances and needs. Thus, the best practices

and other information contained in this guidebook must be considered as

a whole, understanding that a combination of sanctions and interven-

tions is most effective in reducing future DUI offenses and alcohol-related

crashes. This guidebook will not answer all questions related to sentenc-

ing DUI offenders, nor should it. Sentencing must be individualized in

order to be effective. However, this guidebook can be an effective tool for

those who sentence and work with DUI offenders.

V I I - 1

VII. Conclusion



Beck, Kenneth H. & Rauch, William J. Effects ofIgnition Interlock License Restrictions onDrivers with Multiple Alcohol Offenses: ARandomized Trial In Maryland. AmericanJournal of Public Health 89(11):1696-1700,1999.

Brewer, R.D., Morins, P.D., Cole, T.B., Watkins, S.,Patetta, M.J., and Popkin, C. The Risk of Dyingin Alcohol-related Automobile CrashesAmong Habitual Drunk Drivers. New EnglandJournal of Medicine 331(8):513-517, 1994.

Coben, Jeffrey H. & Larkin, Gregory L. Effec-tiveness of Ignition Interlock Devices inReducing Drunk Driving Recidivism. Ameri-can Journal of Preventive Medicine16(1S):81-87, 1999.

Courtright, Kevin E., Berg, Bruce L. & Mutch-nick, Robert J. Rehabilitation in the NewMachine? Exploring Drug and Alcohol Useand Variables Related to Success Among DUIOffenders Under Electronic Monitoring –Some Preliminary Outcome Results. Interna-tional Journal of Offender Therapy and Com-parative Criminology 44(3); 293-311, 2000.

DeBaca, J.C., Lapham, S.C., Liang, H.C., & Skip-per, B.J. Victim Impact Panels: Do They ImpactDrunk Drivers? A Follow-up of Female andMale, First-time and Repeat Offenders. Jour-nal of Studies on Alcohol 62(5):615-620,2001.

DeBaca, Janet C., Lapham, Sandra C., Paine,Susan, & Skipper, Betty J. Victim Impact Pan-els: Who Is Sentenced to Attend? Does Atten-dance Affect Recidivism of First-Time DWIOffenders? Alcoholism Clinical and Experi-mental Research 24(9):1420-1426, 2000.

Deyoung, David J. An Evaluation of the Effec-tiveness of Alcohol Treatment, Driver LicenseActions and Jail Terms In Reducing DrunkDriving Recidivism in California. Addiction97(92):989-997, 1997.

Fors, Stuart W., & Rojek, Dean G. The Effect ofVictim Impact Panels on DUI/DWI RearrestRates: A Twelve-Month Follow-up. Journal ofStudies on Alcohol 60:514-520, 1999.

Hingson, Ralph. Prevention of Drinking andDriving. Alcohol Health & Research World20(4):219-226, 1996.

Hingson, Ralph & Heeren, Timothy. PreventingImpaired Driving. Alcohol Health & ResearchWorld 23(1):31-39, 1999.

Kadden, Ronald M. Cognitive-behavioralApproaches to Alcoholism Treatment. Alco-hol Health & Research World 18(4):279-285,1994.

Marques, Paul R., Tippetts, A. Scott, Voas,Robert B. & Beirness, Douglas J. PredictingRepeat DUI Offenses with the Alcohol Inter-lock Recorder. Accident Analysis & Preven-tion 33:609-619, 2001.

Marques, Paul R., Voas, Robert B., Tippetts A.Scott & Beirness, Douglas J. Behavioral Moni-toring of DUI Offenders with the Alcohol Igni-tion Interlock Recorder. Addiction94(12):1861-1870, 1999.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-tion. A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders.National Highway Traffic Safety Administra-tion Report No. DOT HS 808 365. Springfield,VA: National Technical Information Service,1996.

V I I I - 1

VIII. References



Polacsek, Michele, Everett, M. Rogers,Woodall,W. Gill, DeLaney, Harold, Wheeler, Denise, &Rao, Nagesh. MADD Victim Impact Panelsand Stages-of-Change in Drunk Driving Pre-vention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol62:344-350, 2001.

Research Refines Alcoholism TreatmentOptions. Alcohol Research & Health24(1):53-61, 2000.

Ross, H. Laurence. License Deprivation as aDrunk-driver Sanction. Alcohol, Drugs andDriving (7)1; 63-70, 1991.

Ross, H. Laurence, McCleary, Richard, LaFree,Gary. Can Mandatory Jail Laws Deter DrunkDriving? The Arizona Case. The Journal ofCriminal Law & Criminology 81(1); 156-170,1990.

Ross, H. Laurence, Simon, Steven, Clary, James.License Plate Confiscation for PersistentAlcohol Impaired Drivers. Accident Analysisand Prevention 28(1); 53-61, 1996.

Sprang, Ginny. Victim Impact Panels: AnExamination of the Effectiveness of This Pro-gram on Lowering Recidivism and ChangingOffenders’ Attitudes About Drinking and Dri-ving. Journal of Social Service Research22(3):73-84, 1997.

Voas, Robert B. Have the Courts and theMotor Vehicle Departments Adequate Powerto Control the Hard-core Drunk Driver?Addiction 96:1701-1707, 2001.

Voas, Robert B., Blackman, Kenneth O., Tip-petts,A. Scott & Marques, Paul R. Evaluation ofa Program to Motivate Impaired DrivingOffenders to Install Ignition Interlocks. Acci-dent Analysis and Prevention 34:449-455,2002.

Voas, Robert B. & DeYoung, David J. VehicleAction: Effective Policy for Controlling Drunkand Other High-risk Drivers? Accident Analy-sis and Prevention 34(3); 263-270, 2002.

Voas, Robert B. & Fisher, Deborah A. Court Pro-cedures for Handling Intoxicated Drivers.Alcohol Research & Health 25(1):32-42,2001.

Voas, Robert B., Marques, Paul R., Tippetts,Scott A., & Beirness, Douglas J. The AlbertaInterlock Program: the Evaluation of aProvince-wide Program on DUI Recidivism.Addiction 94(12):1849-1859, 1999.

Voas, Robert B., Tippetts, A. Scott & Taylor,Eileen. Temporary Vehicle Impoundment inOhio: A Replication and Confirmation. Acci-dent Analysis and Prevention 30(5); 651-655, 1998.

Weinrath, Michael & Gartrell, John. SpecificDeterrence and Sentence Length – The Caseof Drunk Drivers. Journal of ContemporaryCriminal Justice 17(2); 105-122, 2001.

Wells-Parker, Elisabeth, Anderson, Bradley J.,Landrum, James W., & Snow, Ronald W.Long-term Effectiveness of Probation, Short-term Intervention and LAI Administration forReducing DUI Recidivism. British Journal ofAddiction 83; 415-421, 1988.

Wells-Parker, Elisabeth & Bangert-Drowns,Robert. Final Results From a Meta-analysis ofRemedial Interventions With Drink/DriveOffenders. Addiction 90(7):907-926, 1995.

Wells-Parker, Elisabeth. Mandated Treatment.Alcohol Health & Research World 18(4):302-306, 1994.

Wheeler, Gerald R. & Hissong, Rodney V.Effects of Criminal Sanctions on Drunk Dri-vers: Beyond Incarceration. Crime & Delin-quency 34(1); 29-42, 1988.

V I I I - 2

dui best sentencing practices guidebook - …...introduction table of contents i. philosophy of...

Documents