Implied-consent laws: a review of the literature and examination of current problems and related statutes.

PROBLEM A substantial proportion of drivers arrested for DUI refuse the BAC test, thereby reducing the likelihood that they will be convicted and potentially increasing the number of high-risk multiple offenders contributing to alcohol-related crashes. METHOD This paper reviews the information on the current status of implied-consent laws (which impose a sanction on offenders who refuse the BAC test) in the 50 states and the other relevant traffic safety laws and policies that may influence state refusal rates. RESULTS Although there appears to be only a weak relationship between state refusal rates and crash rates, there is strong evidence that BAC test refusals significantly compromise the arrest, prosecution, and sentencing of DUI suspects and the overall enforcement of DUI laws in the United States. DISCUSSION Laws and policies that may reduce the number of refusals are discussed. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY Alcohol-related crash injuries are an important cost problem for U.S. industry because of property damage from crashes, crash injuries to employees that raise health costs, or the reduction of time on the job resulting from a highway injury.

[1]  Anne Taylor McCartt,et al.  DRUNK DRIVING: SEEKING ADDITIONAL SOLUTIONS , 2002 .

[2]  D. Brooke.  DRINKING AND DRIVING: ADVANCES IN RESEARCH AND PREVENTION , 1992 .

[3]  D D Sadler.  AN EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS EFFICIENCY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY IMPACT OF THE CALIFORNIA IMPLIED CONSENT PROGRAM: VOLUME 4 OF AN EVALUATION OF THE CALIFORNIA DRUNK DRIVING COUNTERMEASURE SYSTEM , 1984 .

[4]  Raymond C. Peck,et al.  "Surgeon General's Workshop on Drunk Driving: Background Papers: 'Epidemiologic Perspectives on Drunk Driving' " (pages 35-76) , 1989 .

[5]  H. Ross,et al.  Deterring the Drinking Driver: Legal Policy and Social Control. , 1983 .

[6]  D. Erickson,et al.  Complying with the minimum drinking age: effects of enforcement and training interventions. , 2005, Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research.

[7]  Rod G Gullberg,et al.  Factors associated with breath test refusals in drunken driving arrests. , 2005, Science & justice : journal of the Forensic Science Society.

[8]  R B Voas,et al.  DRUNK DRIVING ENFORCEMENT, ADJUDICATION, AND SANCTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES , 1990 .

[9]  Hugh Laurence Ross,et al.  CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF IMPLIED CONSENT TEST REFUSAL , 1995 .

[10]  A Scott Tippetts,et al.  Evaluation of a program to motivate impaired driving offenders to install ignition interlocks. , 2002, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  J. Associates.  Surgeon General's Workshop on Drunk Driving: Background Papers , 1989 .

[12]  Richard Roth,et al.  Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective? , 2007, Traffic injury prevention.

[13]  S A Ferguson,et al.  THE ROLE OF PASSIVE ALCOHOL SENSORS IN DETECTING ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVERS AT SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS , 1995 .

[14]  D J Beirness,et al.  DEALING WITH THE HARD CORE DRINKING DRIVER , 1996 .

[15]  R B Voas,et al.  Enforcement of Zero Tolerance in the State of Washington - Evidence from Breath-Test Records. , 2001, Forensic science review.

[16]  D J Beirness,et al.  Use of Warrants for Breath Test Refusal: Case Studies , 2007 .

[17]  H M Simpson,et al.  DWI SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS FOR DEALING WITH HARD CORE DRINKING DRIVERS: ENFORCEMENT. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , 2001 .

[18]  Randy W. Elder,et al.  Reviews of evidence regarding interventions to reduce alcohol-impaired driving. , 2001, American journal of preventive medicine.