Law Enforcement Caselaw and Statutes: Participant Manual SFST - Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Participant Manual SFST - Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Session 2

Detection and

General

Deterrence

2-1

50 Minutes

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 2 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Describe frequency of DWI violations and

crashes

• Define general deterrence

• Describe relationship between detection

and general deterrence

• Describe a brief history of alcohol

• Identify common types of alcohol

• Describe physiologic processes of alcohol

absorption, distribution, and elimination

Learning Objectives

2-2

Learning Objectives

At the conclusion of this session, participants will be able to:

• Describe the frequency of DWI violations and crashes

• Define general deterrence

• Describe the relationship between detection and general deterrence

• Describe a brief history of alcohol

• Identify common types of alcohol

• Describe the physiologic processes of absorption, distribution, and elimination of

alcohol in the body

CONTENT SEGMENTS LEARNING ACTIVITIES

A. The DWI Problem Instructor Led Presentations

B. The Concept of General Deterrence Video Presentation

C. Relating Detection to Deterrence Potential Reading Assignments

D. Evidence of Effective Detection and

Effective Deterrence

E. Physiology of Alcohol

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 3 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

The DWI Problem

2-3

• Prior to 1994, nearly half of the drivers

who died in crashes had been drinking

• In 2010 – 10,228 alcohol related fatalities

represented 31 percent of all traffic

fatalities

A. The DWI Problem (Local, State and National)

How Widespread Is DWI?

While not all of those who drive after drinking have a BAC of 0.08 or more, the

presumptive or illegal per se limit for DWI in all states, some drivers do have BACs in

excess of these limits.

Prior to 1994, nearly half of the drivers who died in crashes had been drinking.

Each year, tens of thousands of people die in traffic crashes. Throughout the nation,

alcohol is the major contributor to traffic fatalities. In 2010, there were 10,228 alcohol

related fatalities representing 31 % of all traffic fatalities. (NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts;

2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview, DOT HS 811 552, February 2012.)

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

The DWI Problem (Cont.)

2-4

05 06 07 08 09 10 11

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

Traffic Deaths

Average

Impaired drivers are more likely than other drivers to take excessive risks such as

speeding or turning abruptly. Impaired drivers also are more likely than other drivers to

have slowed reaction times. They may not be able to react quickly enough to slow

down before crashing and are less likely to wear seatbelts. On the average, two

percent of drivers on the road at any given time are DWI. DWI violations and crashes

are not simply the work of a relatively few "problem drinkers" or "problem drug users."

Many people commit DWI, at least occasionally.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 4 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

8.8 million people admitted driving over the

legal limit in past 12 months

Drivers with BAC 0.08 or Above

2-5

Estimates indicate that nationwide about 8.8 million persons 16 and over, self-reported

that they drove over the legal limit in the past 12 months.

It is also estimated that 1 in 88 drivers over the legal limit was arrested for DWI.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

What number of drivers commit this

violation?

National Statistics

2-6

Weekend Nights – 10 percent or

More

A frequently quoted, and often misinterpreted, statistic places the average incidence of

DWI at one driver in fifty. Averaged across all hours of the day and all days of the week,

two percent of the drivers on the road are DWI. The 1 in 50 figure is offered as evidence

that a relatively small segment of America's drivers, the so called "problem" group,

account for the majority of traffic deaths. There's nothing wrong with that figure as a

statistical average, but police officers know that at certain times and places many more

than two percent of drivers are impaired. NHTSA research suggests that during the late

night, weekend hours, as many as 10 % of drivers on the roads may be DWI. On certain

holiday weekends, and other critical times, the figure may go even higher.

How Many? How Often?

The issue of how many DWIs are on the road at any given time is an important factor in

measuring the magnitude of the problem. However, from an overall traffic safety

perspective, the more important issue may be the number of drivers who ever commit

DWI. Just how widespread is this violation?

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 5 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Drives intoxicated 80 times/year

• Once every four or five nights

• Some every day

Average DWI Violator

2-7

It is conservatively estimated that the typical DWI violator commits that offense about 80

times per year. In other words, the average DWI violator drives while under the

influence once every four or five nights.

Clearly, it is more than one in fifty. Although it may be true that, on the average, two

percent of drivers are DWI at any given time, it certainly is not the same two percent

every time. It is even more than one in ten. Not everyone who commits DWI is out on

the road impaired every Friday and Saturday night. Some of them, at least, must skip

an occasional weekend. Thus, the 10 % who show up, weekend after weekend, in the

Friday and Saturday statistics must come from a larger pool of violators, each of whom

"contributes" to the statistics on some nights, but not necessarily on all nights.

An analysis of BAC roadside survey data suggests that the average DWI violator

commits the violation approximately 80 times each year. Undoubtedly, there are some

who drive impaired virtually every day; others commit the violation less often. It is likely

that at least one quarter of all American motorists drive while impaired at least once in

their lives. That figure falls approximately midway between the 55 % of drivers who at

least occasionally drive after drinking and the 10 % of weekend, nighttime drivers who

have BACs above the so called legal limit.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 6 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Far more than 2 percent of drivers

contribute to DWI problem

• Crime committed by a substantial

segment of Americans

• Can be fought through societal approach

DWI Problem

2-8

These estimates include everyone who drives impaired every day, as well as everyone

who commits the violation just once and never offends again; and it includes everyone

in between. In short, it includes everyone who ever runs the risk of being involved in a

crash while impaired.

Society's Problem and the Solution

The fact is that far more than two percent of American drivers actively contribute to the

DWI problem. DWI is a crime committed by a substantial segment of Americans. It has

been and remains a popular crime; one that many people from all walks and stations of

life commit. DWI is a crime that can be fought successfully only through a societal

approach of comprehensive community based programs.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 7 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Alcohol Related Crash Fatalities

2-9

• 31 percent of all fatal crashes on

weekends alcohol-impaired.

• Alcohol impaired drivers involved in fatal

crashes were 4 times higher at night

• 1.41 million drivers were arrested for DWI

in 2010

• Average one fatality every 51 minutes

• Cost society approximately $54 billion

• Lost productivity, medical expenses,

property damages, and other related

expenditures

• 31 percent of all fatal crashes on weekends alcohol-impaired.

• Alcohol impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes were 4 times higher at night.

• 1.41 million drivers were arrested for DWI in 2010.

• These alcohol related fatalities represent an average of one alcohol related fatality

every 51 minutes.

• Based on the most current cost data available, these alcohol related fatalities cost

society approximately $54 billion in lost productivity, medical expenses, property

damages, and other related expenditures.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, 2010 Data, DOT HS 811 606, April 2012.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Alcohol Facts

2-10

Drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher

accounted for 65 percent of the fatalities:

• 17 percent were passengers riding with

the driver with a BAC of .08 or higher

• 11 percent of fatalities were occupants of

other vehicles

• 7 percent were persons not in vehicles

• In 2010, 11,773 lives were lost in alcohol impaired crashes representing 32

percent of the total motor vehicle fatalities in the U.S.

• Drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher accounted for 65 percent of the fatalities, 17

percent were passengers riding with a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher, 11

percent of these fatalities were occupants of other vehicles, and 7 percent were

persons not in vehicles.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 8 of 39

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, 2010 Data, DOT HS 811 606, April 2012.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Alcohol Facts (Cont.)

2-11

• In 2010, 10,395 lives were lost in speed

related crashes

• 42 percent of all drivers with a BAC of .08

or higher, involved in fatal crashes, were

speeding

• In 2010, between midnight and 3:00 a.m.,

72 percent of speeding drivers involved

in fatal crashes had a BAC of .08 or

higher

• In 2010, 10,395 lives were lost in speed related crashes.

• 42 percent of all drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher, involved in fatal crashes,

were speeding.

• In 2010, between midnight and 3:00 a.m., 72 percent of speeding drivers

involved in fatal crashes had a BAC of .08 or higher.

Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts, 2010 Data, DOT HS 811, 636, August 2012.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• The rate of alcohol impairment for drivers

involved in fatal crashes was four times

higher at night than during the day

• Drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher who

were involved in fatal crashes were eight

times more likely to have a prior

conviction for driving while impaired as

compared to drivers involved in fatal

crashes with no alcohol involvement

Alcohol Facts (Cont.)

2-12

• The rate of alcohol impairment for drivers involved in fatal crashes was four times

higher at night than during the day.

• Drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher who were involved in fatal crashes were eight

times more likely to have a prior conviction for driving while impaired as compared to

drivers involved in fatal crashes with no alcohol involvement.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 9 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Alcohol Facts (Cont.)

2-13

• In 2010, 6,652 drivers involved in fatal

crashes had a BAC of .15 or higher

• Males account for 70 percent of all traffic

fatalities

• In 2010, the fatal crash involvement rate

per 100,000 population was almost three

times higher for male drivers than for

females

• In 2010, 6,652 drivers involved in fatal crashes had a BAC of .15 or higher.

• Males account for 70 percent of all traffic fatalities.

• In 2010, the fatal crash involvement rate per 100,000 population was almost

three times higher for male drivers than for females.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 10 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

The fear of arrest

General Deterrence

2-14

B. Concept of General Deterrence

The fear of arrest is the leading deterrent.

One approach to reducing the number of drinking drivers is general deterrence of DWI.

General deterrence of DWI is based in the driving public's fear of being arrested. If

enough violators come to believe that there is a good chance that they will get caught,

at least some of them will stop committing DWI at least some of the time. However,

unless there is a real risk of arrest, there will not be much fear of arrest.

Law enforcement officers must arrest enough violators enough of the time to convince

the general public that they will get caught, sooner or later, if they continue to drive while

impaired.

How many DWI violators must be arrested in order to convince the public that there is a

real risk of arrest for DWI?

Several programs have demonstrated that significant deterrence can be achieved by

arresting 1 DWI violator for every 400 DWI violations committed. Currently, however, for

every 1 DWI violator arrested, there are between 500 and 2,000 DWI violations

committed.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 11 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

There is no reason to fear arrest

General Deterrence (Cont.)

2-15

When the chances of being arrested are one in two thousand, the average DWI violator

really has little to fear.

There are three noteworthy reasons.

• DWI violators vastly outnumber police officers. It is not possible to arrest every

drinking driver each time they commit DWI.

• Some officers are not highly skilled at DWI detection. They fail to recognize and

arrest many DWI violators.

• Some officers are not motivated to detect and arrest DWI violators.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Citations issued to violators later found to have

BACs between 0.10 and 0.20.

Ft. Lauderdale BAC Study

2-16

Other Violations

78 percent

DWI

22 percent

Significant Findings

In a 1975 study conducted in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, only 22 percent of traffic violators

who were stopped with BACs between 0.10 and 0.20 were arrested for DWI. The

remainder were cited for other violations, even though they were legally impaired. In this

study breath tests were administered to the violators by researchers after the police

officers had completed their investigations. The officers failed to detect 78 percent of the

DWI violators they investigated.

Police officers sometimes fail to recognize and arrest a DWI violator. Ft. Lauderdale

(Florida) BAC study (1975): only 22 % of traffic violators with BACs between 0.10 and

0.20 were arrested for DWI.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 12 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

For every DWI violator arrested…

Ft. Lauderdale BAC Study (Cont.)

2-17

Implication: For every DWI violator actually arrested three others are contacted by

police officers, face to face, but are released without arrest.

Significant improvement in arrest rate could be achieved if officers were more skilled at

DWI detection.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

The goal is to encourage more

Americans to:

• Avoid committing DWI

• Control drinking prior to driving

• Select alternative transportation

• Avoid riding with impaired drivers

• Recognize impaired driving is

unacceptable behavior at all levels

The Ultimate Goal:

Changing Behavior

2-18

The Solutions

The Ultimate Goal: Changing Behavior

What must the comprehensive community based DWI programs seek to accomplish?

Ultimately, nothing less than fundamental behavioral change, on a widespread basis.

The goal is to encourage more Americans to:

• Avoid committing DWI, either by avoiding or controlling drinking prior to driving or by

selecting alternative transportation.

• Intervene actively to prevent others from committing DWI (for example, putting into

practice the theme "friends don't let friends drive drunk")

• Avoid riding with drivers who are impaired.

The final test of the value of DWI countermeasures on the national, state and local

levels is whether they succeed in getting significantly more people to modify their

behavior. The programs also pursue other more immediate objectives that support or

reinforce the ultimate goal. However, the ultimate goal is to change driving while

impaired to an unacceptable form of behavior at all levels.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 13 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Prevention

• Deterrence

Two Approaches

2-19

Pursuing the Goal: Two Approaches

How can we bring about these changes in behavior? How can we discourage impaired

driving, prevent others from drinking and driving, and avoid becoming passive

"statistics" by refusing to ride with drinking drivers?

Basically, there are two general approaches that must be taken to achieve this goal.

One: prevention -- gives promise of the ultimate, lasting solution to the DWI problem;

but it will require a substantial amount of time to mature fully.

Two: deterrence -- only offers a partial or limited solution, but it is available right now.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 14 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Promote positive attitudes

• DWI is wrong

• No one has the right to endanger others

• DWI cannot be tolerated or condoned

Prevention

2-20

Prevention: the Ultimate Solution

DWI countermeasures that strive for the ultimate achievement of drinking and driving

behavioral changes have been grouped under the label "Prevention." There are many

kinds of DWI preventive activities. Some are carried out by and in our schools, some

through the mass media, some through concerned civic groups, and so forth. The

various preventive efforts focus on different specific behaviors and address different

target groups.

However, they seek to change drinking and driving behavior by promoting more positive

attitudes and by fostering a set of values that reflects individual responsibilities toward

drinking and driving.

Preventive countermeasures seek society's acceptance of the fact that DWI is wrong.

Some people believe that drinking and driving is strictly an individual's personal

business; that it is up to each person to decide whether or not to accept the risk of

driving after drinking. Preventive activities try to dispel that outmoded and irresponsible

belief. Instead, they promote the idea that no one has the right to endanger others by

drinking and driving, or to risk becoming a burden (economically and otherwise) to

others as a result of injuries suffered while drinking and driving. Realistically, everyone

has an obligation not only to control their own drinking and driving, but also to speak up

when others are about to commit the violation. Only when all of society views DWI as a

negative behavior that cannot be tolerated or condoned, will the public's behavior begin

to change. That is the long term solution.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 15 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Driving public's fear of being arrested

• Enough violators must be arrested to

convince public they will get caught

Deterrence

2-21

General deterrence of DWI is based on the driving public's fear of being arrested. If

enough violators come to believe that there is a good chance that they will get caught,

some of them (at least) will stop committing DWI at least some of the time.

Unless there is a real risk of being arrested, there will not be much fear of arrest.

Law enforcement must arrest enough violators to convince the public that they will get

caught, if they continue to drive while impaired.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Driving public's fear of being arrested

• Enough violators must be arrested to

convince public they will get caught

Deterrence (Cont.)

2-22

C. Relating Detection to Deterrence Potential

Deterrence: the Interim Solution

DWI countermeasures that seek a short cut to the ultimate goal of behavioral change

usually are labeled "Deterrence." Deterrence can be described as negative

reinforcement. Some deterrence countermeasures focus primarily on changing

individual drinking and driving behavior while others seek to influence people to

intervene into others' drinking and driving decisions.

The key feature of deterrence is that it strives to change DWI behavior without dealing

directly with the prevailing attitudes about the rightness or wrongness of DWI.

Deterrence uses a mechanism quite distinct from attitudinal change: fear of

apprehension and application of sanctions.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 16 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Fear long term costs and inconvenience

The Fear of Being

Caught and Punished

2-23

The Fear of Being Caught and Punished

Large scale DWI deterrence programs try to control the DWI behavior of the driving

public by appealing to the public's presumed fear of being caught. Most actual or

potential DWI violators view the prospect of being arrested with extreme distaste. For

some, the arrest, with its attendant handcuffing, booking, publicity and other stigmatizing

and traumatizing features, is the thing most to be feared. For others, it is the prospective

punishment (jail, stiff fine, etc.) that causes most of the concern. Still others fear most

the long term costs and inconvenience of a DWI arrest: the license suspension and

increased premiums for automobile insurance. For many violators the fear probably is a

combination of all of these. Regardless, if enough violators are sufficiently fearful of DWI

arrest, some of them will avoid committing the violation at least some of the time. Fear

by itself will not change their attitudes; if they do not see anything inherently wrong with

drinking and driving in the first place, the prospect of arrest and punishment will not help

them see the light. However, fear sometimes can be enough to keep them from putting

their anti-social attitudes into practice. This type of DWI deterrence, based on the fear of

being caught, is commonly called general deterrence. It applies to the driving public

generally and presumably affects the behavior of those who have never been caught.

There is an element of fear of the unknown at work here.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 17 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Those who have been caught and

arrested

• Public must perceive that there is an

appreciable risk of being caught and

convicted

• Enforcement creates and sustains fear

of being caught

Specific Deterrence

2-24

Another type of DWI deterrence, called specific deterrence, applies to those who have

been caught and arrested. The typical specific deterrent involves some type of

punishment, perhaps a fine, involuntary community service, a jail term or action against

the driver's license. The punishment is imposed in the hope that it will convince the

specific violator that there is indeed something to fear as a result of being caught, and to

emphasize that if there is a next time, the punishment will be even more severe. It is the

fear of the known that comes into play in this case.

The concept of DWI deterrence through fear of apprehension or punishment seems

sound. But will it work in actual practice? The crux of the problem is this: If the motoring

public is to fear arrest and punishment for DWI, they must perceive that there is an

appreciable risk of being caught and convicted if they commit the crime. If actual and

potential DWI violators come to believe that the chance of being arrested is minimal,

they will quickly lose whatever fear of arrest they may have felt.

Enforcement is the mechanism for creating and sustaining a fear of being caught for

DWI. No specific deterrence program can amount to much, unless police officers arrest

large numbers of violators; no punishment or rehabilitation program can affect behavior

on a large scale unless it is applied to many people. General deterrence depends on

enforcement -- the fear of being caught is a direct function of the number of people who

are caught.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 18 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Supportive roles: Legislators,

Prosecutors, Judiciary, and Media

Specific Deterrence (Cont.)

2-25

Obviously, the police alone cannot do the job. Legislators must supply laws that the

police can enforce. Prosecutors must vigorously prosecute DWI violators, and the

judiciary must adjudicate fairly and deliver the punishments prescribed by law. The

media must publicize the enforcement effort and communicate the fact that the risk is

not worth the probable outcome. Each of these elements plays a supportive role in DWI

deterrence.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

For every DWI violator arrested, there are

between 500 and 2,000 undetected DWI

violations

How Much Deterrence is Enough?

2-26

How much deterrence is enough?

Estimates from around the country: For every DWI violator arrested, there are between

500 and 2,000 undetected DWI violations.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 19 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Does the average DWI violator fear

arrest?

• Should they be afraid?

• Intense publicity may enhance the

perceived risk

How Great is the Risk?

2-27

How Great is the Risk?

Sometimes, it is possible to enhance the perceived risk, at least for a while, through

intensive publicity. However, media "hype" without intensified enforcement has never

been enough to maintain the fear of arrest for very long.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Annual DWI arrests, in most places,

equal about one percent of the number of

drivers in the population

• Annual DWI arrests equal about one

percent of drivers in the population

• The average violator commits DWI 80

times each year

How Much Should the Public Fear?

2-28

How Much Should the Public Fear?

We can draw some reasonable estimates of DWI enforcement intensity, based on what

we know and on certain assumptions we have already made. Suppose we deal with a

random sample of 100 Americans of driving age. If they come from typical enforcement

jurisdictions, chances are that exactly one of them will be arrested for DWI in any given

year: our annual DWI arrests, in most places, equal about one percent of the number of

drivers in the population. That is one arrest out of 100 drivers during one year;

however, how many DWI violations do those drivers commit? Recall our previous

estimates that some 25 % of America's drivers at least occasionally drive while under

the influence, and that the average violator commits DWI 80 times each year. Then, our

sample of 100 drivers includes 25 DWI violators who collectively are responsible for

2,000 DWI violations yearly.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 20 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Arrest enough violators to convince

many of them it can happen to them

• As arrest rate increases, odds are that it

will happen to them eventually

Changing the Odds

2-29

Changing the Odds

If an arrest/violation ratio of 1 in 2,000 is not enough to make deterrence work, is it then

reasonable to think that we can ever make deterrence work? After all, if we doubled

DWI arrests to 1 in 1,000, we would still be missing 999 violators for every one we

managed to catch. If we increased arrests ten fold, to 1 in 200, 199 would escape for

every one arrested. How much deterrence would that produce?

Surprisingly, it would probably produce quite a bit. We don't have to arrest every DWI

offender every time in order to convince them that they have something to fear. We only

have to arrest enough of them enough of the time to convince many of them that it can

happen to them. As the arrest rate increases, the odds are that it will happen to them

eventually. The law of averages (or cumulative probability) will catch up with them, and

sooner than we might at first expect.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 21 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Percent of Violators Arrested

After…

2-30

Nightly Arrest

Rate

One Year Two Years Three Years

1 in 2000 3.9

percent

7.7

percent

11.3

percent

1 in 1000 7.7

percent

14.8

percent

21.3

percent

1 in 500 14.8

percent

27.4

percent

38.2

percent

1 in 20 33.0

percent

55.2

percent

70.0

percent

The statistics on the chart display the cumulative probability (as a percentage) of being

arrested at least once during the course of one, two or three years as a function of the

arrest rate on any given night. These statistics are based on the assumption that the

average violator commits DWI 80 times each year.

Clearly, the chances of being caught accumulate very quickly as the arrest/violation

ratio increases. If we could maintain a ratio of one arrest in every 500 violations (a level

of enforcement currently maintained in some jurisdictions), then by the time one year

has passed, slightly more than one of every seven people (14.8 %) who have

committed DWI during that year will have been arrested at least once. It probably is a

high enough chance to get the attention -- and fear -- of many violators. If we could

achieve an arrest ratio of 1 in 200 (a level attainable by officers skilled in DWI detection)

we will arrest fully one third of all DWI violators at least once every year and we will

arrest more than half of them by the time two years have gone by.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

Realistic increase in DWI enforcement

activity will induce a significant degree of

general deterrence and a corresponding

change in DWI behavior

Can it be Done? Will it Work?

2-31

D. Evidence of Effective Detection and Effective Deterrence

Can it Be Done, and Will it Work?

Is there any evidence that a practical and realistic increase in DWI enforcement activity

will induce a significant degree of general deterrence and a corresponding change in

DWI behavior? Yes there is.

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 22 of 39

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• 1975: Arrest/violation ratio of 1 in 2000

or less, 9 percent of weekend drivers

were operating with BAC of 0.10 or

higher

• 1976 -1979: Intensive DWI enforcement

on weekends nights

• Officers intensively trained,

enforcement publicized, justice

community coordinated

Stockton, California

3 Year Intensive Weekend DWI Enforcement

2-32

Several enforcement programs have succeeded in achieving significant DWI

deterrence. Consider, for example, the three year intensive weekend DWI enforcement

program in Stockton, California.

As early as 1975, a study showed that the city's total number of DWI arrests (700) were

considerably less than one percent of the areas licensed number of drivers (130,000).

The implication here was that Stockton police were only maintaining the arrest/violation

ration of 1:2,000, or less. In addition, roadside surveys on Friday and Saturday nights

disclosed that nine percent of the drivers were operating with BAC's of 0.10 or higher.

Then things changed. Beginning in 1976 and continuing at planned intervals through

the first half of 1979, Stockton police conducted intensive DWI enforcement on weekend

nights. The officers involved were extensively trained. The enforcement effort was

heavily publicized and additional equipment (PBTs and cassette recorders) was made

available. The police effort was closely coordinated with the District Attorney's office, the

County Probation office, and other allied criminal justice and safety organizations.

Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence

Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

• Arrests increased 500 percent

• Weekend nighttime crashes decreased

34 percent

• Proportion of nighttime, weekend drivers

legally under the influence dropped from

9 percent to 6 percent

• For every DWI arrest, three others are

contacted by police officers but NOT

arrested for DWI

Stockton, California (Cont.)

2-33

All this paid off. By the time the project came to a close (in 1979) DWI arrests had

increased by over 500 %, and weekend nighttime collisions had decreased by 34 %,

and the number of operators committing DWI dropped one third.

The implication of this study, and of other similar studies, is that for every DWI violator

actually arrested for DWI, three others are contacted by police officers, but are not

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

Notes:_______________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

HS 178 R5/13 23 of 39

arrested for DWI. It is clear that significant improvement in the arrest rate could be

achieved if officers were more skilled at DWI detection.Source: DWI Detection and

Standardized Field

Sobriety Testing

March 2013 Edition

Law Enforcement Caselaw and Statutes

October 27, 2015

Participant Manual SFST - Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence Session 2 – Detection and General Deterrence Standardized Field Sobriety Test Course

No comments:

About Me

Blog Archive