Impaired driving enforcement practices among state and local law enforcement agencies in the United States.

INTRODUCTION Alcohol-impaired driving (DUI) persists as a substantial problem, yet detailed data on DUI enforcement practices are rarely collected. The present study surveyed state and local law enforcement agencies about their DUI enforcement activities. METHOD Telephone interviews were conducted with law enforcement liaisons in state highway safety offices. Officers from a nationally representative sample of municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies were also interviewed about their agency's DUI enforcement activities, including the types of enforcement, frequency of use, and whether activities were publicized. Response rates were 100% among law enforcement liaisons, 86% among county agencies, 93% among municipal agencies, and 98% among state agencies. RESULTS Based on the highway safety office survey, 38 states conducted sobriety checkpoints in 2011. Nationally, 58% of law enforcement agencies reported that they conducted or helped conduct sobriety checkpoints during 2011-12, with 14% of all agencies conducting them monthly or more frequently. The vast majority (87%) of agencies reported conducting dedicated DUI patrols. However, dedicated DUI patrols were less likely to be publicized than checkpoints. Less than a quarter of agencies reported using passive alcohol sensors to improve detection of alcohol-impaired drivers. CONCLUSIONS Results show that 38 states conducted sobriety checkpoints in 2011, little changed from a previous survey in 2000. Despite evidence of effectiveness, many agencies do not conduct frequent, publicized DUI enforcement or use passive alcohol sensors. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS The survey suggests that there are several areas in which impaired driving enforcement could be improved: increasing the frequency of special enforcement, such as sobriety checkpoints and/or dedicated patrols; publicizing these efforts to maximize deterrent effects; and using passive alcohol sensors to improve detection of alcohol-impaired drivers.

[1]  Toben F. Nelson,et al.  Enforcement of Alcohol-Impaired Driving Laws in the United States: A National Survey of State and Local Agencies , 2015, Traffic injury prevention.

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

[3]  A. Erke,et al.  The effects of drink-driving checkpoints on crashes--a meta-analysis. , 2009, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[4]  M Weimer-Hablitzel.  Why are sobriety checkpoints not widely adopted as an enforcement strategy in the United States , 2005 .

[5]  Adrian K. Lund,et al.  Passive alcohol sensors in law enforcement screening for alcohol-impaired drivers , 1993 .

[6]  Randy W. Elder,et al.  Publicized sobriety checkpoint programs: a community guide systematic review. , 2014, American journal of preventive medicine.

[7]  Jack Stuster,et al.  Experimental evaluation of sobriety checkpoint programs , 1995 .

[8]  David F. Preusser,et al.  Effectiveness of passive alcohol sensors , 1996 .

[9]  S A Ferguson,et al.  Drinking drivers missed at sobriety checkpoints. , 1997, Journal of studies on alcohol.

[10]  Tara Kelley-Baker,et al.  Evaluation of the "Checkpoint Strikeforce" Program , 2008 .

[11]  R B Voas,et al.  The relationship of alcohol safety laws to drinking drivers in fatal crashes. , 2000, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[12]  P. Zador,et al.  Fatal Crash Involvement and Laws against Alcohol-Impaired Driving , 1989, Journal of public health policy.

[13]  J H Lacey,et al.  COMBINING ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC INFORMATION TO DETER DWI: THE EXPERIENCE OF THREE COMMUNITIES. FINAL REPORT , 1990 .

[14]  A Scott Tippetts,et al.  Evaluation of seven publicized enforcement demonstration programs to reduce impaired driving: Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, and Michigan. , 2008, Annals of advances in automotive medicine. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. Annual Scientific Conference.

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

[16]  Anne Peterson,et al.  National survey of drinking and driving attitudes and behaviors: 2008. , 2011, Annals of emergency medicine.

[17]  J C Fell,et al.  Evaluation of the use and benefit of passive alcohol sensors during routine traffic stops. , 2007, Annual proceedings. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

[18]  Tara Kelley-Baker,et al.  Low-Manpower Checkpoints: Can They Provide Effective DUI Enforcement in Small Communities? , 2006, Traffic injury prevention.

[19]  David F. Preusser,et al.  Enforcing alcohol-impaired driving and seat belt use laws, Binghamton, NY☆ , 1992 .