STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF J.J. A-2357-11T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF J.J.
          A-2357-11T2

     This case required us to determine whether procedural due
process rights must be accorded to an adjudicated juvenile prior
to transfer from a juvenile facility operated by the Juvenile
Justice Commission (JJC) to an adult correctional facility
operated by the Department of Corrections (DOC) pursuant to the
provisions of N.J.S.A. 52:17B-175(e).  That statute permits such
transfers of a juvenile "who has reached the age of 16 during
confinement and whose continued presence in the juvenile
facility threatens the public safety, the safety of juvenile
offenders, or the ability of the commission to operate the
program in the manner intended."  The State takes the position
that no due process rights of any kind, including notice and an
opportunity to be heard, are required.  We disagreed and
reversed.

     We concluded that the rehabilitative purposes of the
juvenile justice system combined with the importance of the
decision in terms of the availability of rehabilitative services
to juveniles at issue require due process at least as extensive
as that required for prison discipline.  See Avant v. Clifford,
67 N.J. 496, 525 (1975).  At a minimum, before a juvenile can be
transferred to custody of the DOC, there must be written notice
of the proposed transfer and the supporting factual basis, an
impartial decision maker, an opportunity to be heard and to
present opposition, some form of representation, and written
findings of fact supporting a decision to proceed with the
transfer. 
08-28-12  

State v. Carlton Harris (A-111-10; 067929)

State v. Carlton Harris (A-111-10; 067929)

Items seized during a search conducted pursuant to a

warrant issued under the Prevention of Domestic

Violence Act can serve as the basis for a subsequent

criminal prosecution if their illegal nature is

immediately apparent. A firearm’s serial number is

visible simply by looking at the weapon. Recording

that number does not constitute a seizure, and entry

of that number into the NCIC system and review of the

results does not constitute a search. Whether the

officers could recognize immediately that the assault

rifle and large capacity magazines were illegal to

possess are factual determinations that must be

remanded to the trial court.

8-16-12 

State v. Norman Jackson (A-131/132-10; 067869)

 State v. Norman Jackson (A-131/132-10; 067869)

The trial court properly exercised its discretion when

it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial because

the prosecutor’s improper comments did not deprive

defendant of a fair trial. Defendant both transported

the victim a “substantial distance” and confined him

for a “substantial period” within the meaning of

N.J.S.A. 2C:13-1(b).

8-13-12

State v. J.D. (A-33-11; 064757)

 State v. J.D. (A-33-11; 064757)

Evidence proffered by defendant J.D. of the victim’s

prior sexual contact with other males consisted of

vague allegations that were inadmissible and not

constitutionally compelled, and the trial court

properly excluded it under the Rape Shield Law, which

protects the victim of sexual assault from unjustified

incursions into past conduct. 8-9-12

State v. Aurielo Ray Cagno (A-60-09; 064834)

 State v. Aurielo Ray Cagno (A-60-09; 064834)

The totality of the evidence permitted the jury to

find that the charged conspiracy continued into the

limitations period; the manner in which the

prosecution was permitted to establish the

continuation of the conspiracy did not violate

defendant’s right to confrontation; and the jury

instructions, as a whole, presented a fair, clear, and

accurate statement of the law.

8-8-12

State v. Alfonso Herrerra/State v. Nelson Gonzalez (A-121-10; 067308)

State v. Alfonso Herrerra/State v. Nelson Gonzalez

(A-121-10; 067308)

The exclusionary rule does not apply to a prosecution

for attempted murder and related offenses after a

possibly unlawful stop. An attenuation analysis is

unnecessary. Defendants are not entitled to racial

profiling discovery in seeking to suppress the drug

evidence or to challenge the Trooper’s credibility at

a new trial.

8-7-12 

Douglas Trautmann v. Chris Christie (A-16-11; 067705)

Douglas Trautmann v. Chris Christie (A-16-11; 067705)

The judgment is affirmed substantially for the reasons

expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division.

Chapter 37 is not preempted by federal law, does not

violate equal protection, and does not give rise to an

unconstitutional search and seizure.

State v. Boyce Singleton, Jr

State  v. Boyce Singleton, Jr. (A-124-10; 067746)

 The trial court did not commit plain error by failing to give, sua sponte, a Worlock charge as part of the insanity-defense jury instruction.  The evidence does not clearly indicate defendant killed Cazan as a result of a deific command. 7-30-12

References

• Anderson, E.W. and Burns, M. (1997). Standardized Field Sobriety Tests: A Field Study. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Volume 2, 635-639.
• Arend, R., Dioquino, T., Burns, M., Fiorentino, D., Brown, T., Gguyen, S., and Seymour, C. (1999). A Florida Validation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery. Department of Transportation, State of Florida.
• Aschan, G. (1958). Different types of alcohol nystagmus. Acta Otolaryngology, Supplement 140, 69-78.
• Burns, M., Fiorentino, D., and Stuster, J. (2000). The Observational Threshold Of Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus. In, Proceedings of the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety, Stockholm, Sweden, May.
• Burns, M. and Anderson, E.W. (1995). A Colorado Validation Study of theStandardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery. Colorado Department of Transportation.
• Burns, M. and Moskowitz, H. (1977). Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-5-01242, Washington, D.C.
• Harris, D.H., Dick, R.A., Casey, S.M.,and Jarosz, C.J. (1980). The Visual Detection of Driving While Intoxicated. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-7-1538, Washington.
• Harris, D.H. (1980). Visual detection of driving while intoxicated. Human Factors, 22(6), 725-732.
• Lehti, H.M.J. (1976). The effects of blood alcohol concentration on the onset of gaze nystagmus. Blutalkohol, Vol. 13, 411-414.
• Moskowitz, H., and Robinson, C.D. (1988). Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving-Related Skills: A Review of the Evidence. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-807-280, Washington, D.C.
• Pentilla, A., Tenhu, M., and Kataja, M. (1971). Clinical Examination For Intoxication In Cases of Suspected Drunken Driving. Statistical and Research Bureau of TALJA. Iso Roobertinkatu 20, Helsinki, Finland.
• Stuster, J. and Burns, M. (1998). Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at BACs Below 0.10. US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-808-839, Washington, D.C.
• Stuster, J.W. (1997). The Detection of DWI at BACs Below 0.10. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-808-654, Washington, D.C.
• Stuster, J.W. (1993). The Detection of DWI Motorcyclists. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-807-839, Washington, D.C.
• Tharp, V., Burns, M., and Moskowitz, H. (1981). Development and Field Test of Psychophysical Tests for DWI Arrest. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-805-864, Washington, D.C.
• Wilkinson, I.M.S., Kime, R., and Purnell, M. (1974). Alcohol and human eye movement. Brain, 97, 785-792.
• Continue to Appendix A
• Table of Contents

A Model System for Managing
SFST Refresher Training

Examples of paper records that are used to determine SFST refresher training requirements were reviewed, along with the three computerized spreadsheets, mentioned previously, that were developed by DUI supervisors to help track SFST and other recurrent training. This review of documents, combined with procedural information obtained during the discussions, led to the identification of a preliminary list of data elements for the model SFST training management system.
Next, a computerized spreadsheet was configured, using the preliminary list of data elements as header titles, to evaluate the concepts and the appropriateness of candidate field names. Concepts and field names were modified in an iterative process to accommodate the desired system capabilities and incorporate human factors design principles. The results of this effort are, 1) the list of data elements, presented below, and 2) the system features described in the following paragraphs.

• Agency Name (for agency identification when databases are combined) 
• Officer's Name
• Officer's Social Security or Employee Identification Number 
• Officer's Badge or Star Number 
• Officer's Email Address 
• Initial Training Course Title 
• Initial Training Course Date 
• Initial Training Notes (e.g., instructor's name, description/version of course, location of training) 
• Certificate Number (if applicable) 
• Refresher Course/Review Title 
• Refresher Course/Review Interval to Maintain Certification 
• Date of Most Recent Refresher Training/Review 
• Refresher Training/Review Notes (e.g., instructor's name, description of training, wet lab/practical) 
• Deadline for Next Refresher Training/Review 
• Additional Notes (e.g., expert testimony experience, date notified of refresher requirement)

Because the primary purpose of the system is to alert officers and managers to SFST refresher training requirements, the key data element in the list is the Deadline for Next Refresher Training/Review.¹³ An optimum records management system would calculate this date automatically from the values entered in Refresher Course/Review Interval to Maintain Certification and either Initial Training Course Date or Date of Most Recent Refresher Training/Review, whichever date is more recent.
The system also should be capable of generating reports in response to queries, such as, "List of Officers Whose Deadline for Next Refresher Training Occurs in (specified) Month." This capability would permit systems administrators to periodically identify the pending refresher training requirements of individual officers, and if performed quarterly, would facilitate the scheduling of inservice courses for an agency. Further, the system could be designed to generate notifications automatically and send them to theOfficer's Email Address.
The model system should be capable of generating reports of individual officer's training histories, for example, to be used to confirm credentials in court or assist in performance reviews. The system also should be capable of producing reports that are statistical summaries, for example, the numbers of officers who have received SFST initial training, or refresher training during a specified period. These and other prepared reports should be accessible from the system administrator's interface.
To be optimally useful, the system should include a relational database of modular design that would permit a law enforcement agency to track other periodic or recurrent training or certification requirements, in addition to those associated with SFSTs. That is, the system administrator's interface should include the capability to create additional modules devoted to other training requirements. The data element, or field, names listed previously appear to be sufficiently generic and comprehensive for this purpose. In this regard, the optimum design would permit the system administrator to select Create New Module from an administration menu, enter the name of the new module (e.g., First Aid, Tactical Driving), define the recurrent periodicity for training or certification, then populate the database with officer training information. The names of the training modules should be added automatically to the system's main menu as they are created.
Finally, the system should permit the importing of data from legacy systems, to facilitate initial data entry, and in other ways incorporate established human factors design principles. The system should permit the exporting of data so that agencies could periodically submit their SFST training information to a centralized, master database of practitioners and/or instructors. That is, the system must be scalable to permit use by individual agencies, as well as to serve as the central database by importing all agencies' SFST training information.
During the design process, it was found that a properly-configured spreadsheet could accommodate most of the capabilities and features defined for an optimum system. However, even skillfully-designed spreadsheets cannot provide the automatic reports and notifications identified as important system specifications. For this reason, a prototype system is being developed using Microsoft Access to create the relational database and administrator's interface. The prototype system is currently under development.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the following organizations and individuals for providing information and insights concerning the methods used to manage SFST refresher training requirements. 

• Adams County Sheriff's Office:  Sergeant Harlan Moore 
• Adams County Sheriff's Office: Deputy David Haught 
• Adams County Sheriff's Office: Deputy Richard Henn 
• Aurora Police Department:  Officer Bradley Stelter 
• Aurora Police Department:  Officer Todd Frederickson 
• Boulder County SD: Detective Mark George 
• Buena Vista Police Department: Chief Jimmy Tidwell 
• Colorado State Patrol: Trooper Dan Overturf 
• Commerce City Police Department: Sergeant Wayne Granger 
• Denver Police Department: Sergeant Brian Kramer 
• Douglas County Sheriff's Office: Investigator Steve Krebs 
• Douglas County Sheriff's Office: Deputy Steve Macy
• Grand Junction Police Department: Officer John Casteel 
• Lakewood Police Department: Sergeant Mike Greenwell 
• Littleton Police Department: Lieutenant James Williamson 
• Longmont Police Department: Sergeant Mike Bell 
• Mesa County Sheriff's Office: Corporal Josh Warner 
• Montrose Police Department: Officer Roger Cross 
• Pueblo Police Department: Sergeant Richard Harsh 
• Thornton Police Department: Officer Mark Ashby 
• Rocky Mountain Institute for Transportation Safety: Ms Shari Thorson

---

13. None of the methods used by the agencies contacted during this study included the deadline date as a specific data element. Some of the methods did not include the date of most recent training, making it impossible to calculate refresher training requirements without reviewing actual certificates.

• Continue to References
• Table of Contents

The Research Project staff met with representatives of the Colorado Department of Transportation and NHTSA's Region 8 Office

The Research

Project staff met with representatives of the Colorado Department of Transportation and NHTSA's Region 8 Office to discuss project objectives and methods before beginning the series of open-ended interviews with law enforcement personnel. During those meetings we learned of Colorado's Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (LEAF), an effective and uniquely appropriate means for supporting efforts to counter drinking and driving. Approximately 90 dollars from each DWI/DUI fine paid in Colorado is allocated to LEAF for disbursement to municipal and county law enforcement agencies in the form of grants to help support DWI enforcement activities. More than 20 million dollars in LEAF grants have been awarded since the program began in 1984. Two of the criteria for receiving LEAF grants are that an agency must have at least 80 percent of its officers trained in SFST administration, and the agency must conduct SFST refresher training according to the state standard.
Law enforcement agencies that have been particularly active in the LEAF grant program were identified and the names of contact personnel at those agencies were obtained from the Colorado Department of Transportation and the Rocky Mountain Institute for Transportation Safety. A protocol was developed to guide the discussions and to ensure that all relevant information would be collected.
Discussions were held with representatives of 16 Colorado law enforcement agencies. The agencies included municipal police departments, sheriffs' departments, and the Colorado State Patrol. Agencies ranged in size from the seven-officer Buena Vista Police Department to the 1,400-officer, consolidated Denver City and County Police Department. The agencies included in the sample represent nine percent of Colorado's law enforcement agencies, but account for approximately 40 percent of all law enforcement personnel in the state.⁶ Some of the discussions were conducted during site visits to the agency headquarters, others were conducted during the Rocky Mountain Crash and DUI Conference, and others were conducted by telephone.

Results

Results of the discussions with law enforcement personnel are presented in the following categories: SFST Initial Training, SFST Refresher Training, Training Management Methods, and Utility and Feasibility of a Statewide SFST Records System.

SFST Initial Training

The strong emphasis placed on DWI enforcement by Colorado law enforcement agencies is evident in agencies' policies regarding initial training. In particular, all of the agencies included in the sample provide initial SFST training to all new recruits. Four methods are used by the agencies to provide SFST initial training. 1) The larger agencies, such as the Denver Police Department (1,400 sworn officers), include NHTSA's DWI detection and SFST training in the curriculum that is taught at their departmental academies. 2) Smaller agencies, such as the Montrose Police Department (30 sworn officers) use the services of regional police academies, which also include SFST training modules in their curricula. 3)�Many agencies, such as the Adams County Sheriff's Office (80 sworn deputies) and the Pueblo Police Department (200 sworn officers), conduct their initial SFST training internally, often opening their classes to neighboring agencies. 4)�Agencies of all sizes send recruits to initial SFST courses offered by the Rocky Mountain Institute for Transportation Safety (RMITS). In addition, nearly all SFST instructors in Colorado receive their initial training from RMITS.⁷
Further evidence of the emphasis placed on DWI by Colorado law enforcement agencies is found in policies regarding officers who transfer from one agency to another. Many of the agencies in the sample require transferring officers to take the full 24-hour NHTSA DWI detection and SFST course upon entering the department, even if they have received initial training elsewhere. Similarly, many agencies require officers who have not had patrol assignments for more than two years to take the SFST course again. And, several agencies, including the Littleton Police Department (70 sworn personnel), require that officers be certified in SFST administration before they are eligible for overtime assignments.⁸ Policies such as these encourage officers to become certified in SFST administration and to maintain their proficiency through regular refresher training.

SFST Refresher Training

The proponents of Colorado's SFST standards experienced resistance from some law enforcement agencies concerning the plan to require refresher training. The original proposal suggested eight hours for practitioners and 16 hours for instructors, every two years, to maintain certification. The original proposal was considered to be too costly by many law enforcement managers, both in terms of training costs and officers' absence from the field. A minimum of two hours of refresher training every two years for SFST practitioners, and eight hours every two years for instructors, was an acceptable compromise for nearly all Colorado law enforcement agencies. Among the agencies in our sample, only the Aurora Police Department has yet to establish an SFST refresher training policy for practitioners in response to the state standards.⁹
The high level of commitment to DWI enforcement exhibited by Colorado law enforcement agencies is further illustrated by the SFST refresher training policies adopted by agencies throughout the state. Nine of the 16 agencies in the sample have adopted refresher training policies that exceed the state standard for practitioners. The policies of five of the agencies are twice the minimum requirement, and four of the agencies adopted policies that are four times the minimum. Table 2 presents the distribution of refresher training requirements for SFST practitioners of the sample of 16 Colorado law enforcement agencies. All of the agencies provide the refresher training as part of their on-going, in-service training programs.

Table 2
SFST Refresher Training Requirements For Practitioners:
16-Agency Sample

• Refresher Training Requirement: 2 hours every 2 years � Number of Agencies = 6 
• Refresher Training Requirement: 2 hours per year  � Number of Agencies = 1 
• Refresher Training Requirement:  4 hours every 2 years � Number of Agencies = 4 
• Refresher Training Requirement: 4 hours per year � Number of Agencies = 3 
• Refresher Training Requirement: 8 hours every 2 years � Number of Agencies = 1
• Refresher Training Requirement: No policy � Number of Agencies = 1 

All but two of the agencies contacted during this study have adopted the state refresher training standard for SFST instructors (i.e., eight hours of refresher training every two years). The two agencies in the sample that are not following the state guidelines have adopted policies that involve twice the state's minimum requirement (i.e., eight hours of refresher training each year, rather than every other year). Further, instructors from several of the agencies that adopted the state standard also plan to attend eight-hour, refresher training courses every year, rather than every other year. All of the SFST instructors who were interviewed described the refresher training courses as essential to their professional development and effectiveness as trainers. Officers reported that attending the courses ensures that an instructor is aware of the latest developments in SFST procedures and relevant legal issues.
Exceeding the minimum requirements for practitioner and instructor refresher training is a strong indication of law enforcement support for NHTSA's SFSTs and reflects the dedication of Colorado law enforcement personnel to improving traffic safety. It is significant that officers reported during interviews that the new state SFST standards already have elevated the level of professionalism among SFST practitioners and instructors, and contributed to improvements in the consistency and quality of officers' expert testimony in court.

Training Management Methods

Nine of the law enforcement agencies contacted during the study, including the largest agency in the sample, currently use paper records to keep track of practitioner SFST refresher training requirements. The paper records usually are maintained at agency headquarters, as part of each officer's personnel file, and as lists of officers or course rosters by either the agency's DUI supervisor or the designated SFST instructor.
Three agencies in the sample use computerized spreadsheets to track the SFST training experience of individual officers. In each case, the spreadsheet was developed by a DUI supervisor or SFST instructor to help determine when officers need refresher training to maintain their certification. The DUI supervisors of two of the agencies that use paper records mentioned that they also intend to develop spreadsheets to help with the task, as soon as they find the time to do so.
Two of the agencies contacted use unique computer-based programs to identify SFST training requirements. The programs were developed by agency personnel to manage all training-related matters for their departments, including the many special topics for which recurrent training or skills-demonstration are required at various intervals (e.g., CPR, First Aid, Pressure Point Control Tactics, Intoxilizer, SFSTs). Administrative personnel in the training divisions of these agencies update the databases when an officer reports that training has been completed, and provide individual training histories to each officer annually. Supervisors also receive the training histories and may use the information during performance reviews.The SFST instructors in one of the agencies contacted use a computer program that was developed originally to track Intoxilizer certification requirements. The program was developed under contract to the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for use by CDOT grant recipients and has been modified to also track SFST refresher training requirements.¹⁰
Instructors in all 16 of the agencies contacted are expected to keep track of their own SFST refresher training requirements and to attend the necessary eight-hour courses to maintain their instructor certifications. Some of the instructors reported that notices issued by the LEAF Grant Program and course schedules included in the RMITS newsletter serve as reminders.¹¹
All of the methods for managing SFST refresher training described in the preceding paragraphs, whether paper-based or computerized, share one important requirement: someone must review the records to identify who needs refresher training and by what date they need it to maintain their practitioner certification. The central question remains: How do officers know when they are due for refresher training?
Although instructors are expected to keep track of their own certification requirements, two separate philosophies concerning refresher training for practitioners emerged from the interviews; one approach favors notification while the other stresses personal responsibility.
In this regard, nine of the agencies in the sample inform officers of pending SFST training requirements. Agency personnel review paper or computerized records, then inform the officers, either personally or by posting lists of names. The officers in these agencies may be assigned to a specific class or permitted to choose from among a few options, for convenience, but in all nine agencies the officers are informed of the commitment and required to attend a training session.
In contrast, the policies in six of the agencies place the responsibility for maintaining SFST practitioner certifications on the officer. Officers in these agencies may inspect their departmental training records or maintain a personal log of certification dates for their own use, but they are not specifically informed by their agencies that they must attend an SFST refresher training course. Schedules of courses usually are posted, but in these agencies it is the officer's responsibility to determine when a course must be taken for the officer to remain certified.
Methods are needed for keeping track of officers' most-recent SFST training dates because the state standard for practitioners requires that refresher training be completed at a maximum interval of two years, and officers receive(d) their initial SFST training and/or subsequent refresher training on different dates. Four of the agencies contacted during this study have avoided much of the administrative work associated with SFST refresher training by requiring that all officers attend a class each year, rather than every other year. Three agencies require four-hour classes and one agency requires a two-hour class. The classes are provided as part of an annual in-service program, as in the other agencies; the difference is that all officers must attend the refresher course each year.¹²

Utility and Feasibility of a Statewide SFST Records System

The final question in each open-ended interview conducted during the current study asked whether a centralized, statewide database of SFST practitioners and instructors would be useful. Representatives of nine of the 16 agencies in the sample responded that they did not believe that a statewide database of SFST practitioners would be useful to them, nor would it be practical to implement. These officers and managers commented that their existing methods for tracking training requirements were adequate for their purposes. Three of the four agencies that conduct annual refresher training are in this category because an annual training policy largely eliminates the need for a tracking and scheduling system to satisfy the state requirement for training at two-year intervals. Further, some of the officers did not believe that CDOT would be willing or capable of administering the central database; others commented that it would be impossible to obtain the cooperation of all law enforcement agencies in the state.
Officers from six of the agencies contacted responded that they believed a central SFST database would be useful, especially for smaller agencies that lack administrative personnel to perform the necessary record-keeping tasks. However, officers from four of the six agencies that favor a centralized system commented that it would be impractical, for the same reasons offered by their colleagues who did not believe that a centralized records system would be useful.
The officers and managers were asked if a statewide system might facilitate the confirmation of credentials when an officer transfers from one agency to another. Only two of the officers considered this to be a potential benefit of a central SFST practitioner database. Most of the officers reported that their agencies obtain the complete training histories of transferring officers from the officers' previous agencies, eliminating the need for further confirmation of credentials or certifications. Also, several of the agencies in the sample require transferring officers to attend initial SFST training, along with new recruits, regardless of a transferring officer's previous training experience. This policy is designed to ensure that all officers in the agency are properly trained and administer the SFSTs in a consistent manner.Despite the apparent lack of support for a statewide records system for SFST practitioners, officers and managers from nine of the agencies contacted responded that a central database for SFST instructors might be both useful and practical. A centralized SFST instructor database would help smaller agencies to identify instructors in their area, and might contribute to the growing sense of professionalism among SFST instructors. Further, a centralized database would facilitate the timely dissemination of updated SFST information and materials. Officers commented that an instructor database would be more feasible than a practitioner database because there are only about 300 SFST instructors in the state, compared to several thousand practitioners.

---

6. More than half of the law enforcement agencies in Colorado have fewer than 40 sworn officers; 76 of the agencies have ten or fewer officers.
7. The Rocky Mountain Institute for Transportation Safety (RMITS) is part of the Division of Educational Outreach of the Colorado State University.
8. For example, the Pueblo Police Department does not require detectives to maintain their SFST certification, but detectives must recertify if they wish to participate in special, overtime, patrols.
9. All new recruits to the Aurora Police Department receive the 24-hour NHTSA SFST course at the department's academy, and all Aurora Police Department patrol officers have been trained in SFST administration. However, there are many older officers on the force who joined the department before SFST training was included in the curriculum. Police managers believe it would be too expensive to provide all of those officers with the 24-hour SFST initial training courses.
10. The Intoxilyzer Certification Records program was developed by Brad Wiesley & Associates. Intoxilyzer operators must be recertified every six months. The process involves only a brief demonstration of proficiency, compared to the less frequent, two-hour refresher training course that is required to maintain SFST certification. However, Intoxilyzer instructors spend a great deal of time maintaining the equipment and providing individual refresher training to operators.
11. Instructors' course fees for RMITS refresher training are paid by CDOT for all SFST instructors who received their initial instructor training from RMITS; that is, instructors' agencies are responsible only for paying travel costs associated with SFST instructors' refresher training.
12. For example, the chief of the Buena Vista Police Department devotes a two-hour team meeting each year to SFST refresher training; all seven full-time and five part-time officers are required to attend. Similarly, the 30 SFST instructors of the Colorado State Patrol provide four-hours of SFST training to each of the agencies 600 officers every year, also during regularly-scheduled team meetings. In both agencies, the sessions help satisfy officers' annual in-service training requirements.

• Continue to Model System
• Table of Contents