Methods to Reduce Rates of Driving Under the Influence

by

Malissa Mardorf

For

Justice and Law Research Seminar 405, Section 71

Professor William P. DeFeo

Western Connecticut State University

April 27, 2015

T H E S I S

This literature review focuses on analyzing the effectiveness of methods to help lower the

number of alcohol related driving occurrences. Laws, checks, and programs are put into place to

lower the number of fatal alcohol related accidents and incidents. The Ignition Interlock Program

in Connecticut is also looked at in great detail and analyzed. The variables that were assessed

were race, income level, and previous offenses. The recidivism rate of the offenders will prove

if the device is effective or not at reducing drunken driving. The result proved that these systems

are beneficial to the cause, lower rates of recidivism, and are effective in stopping the

continuation of driving under the influence.

2

T E X T

The purpose of this research is to evaluate laws and programs aimed to reduce motor

vehicle related incidents due to the influence of alcohol. In order to assess this problem, a

number of factors have to be examined. Laws created to help cut down on driving while

intoxicated are becoming more available as more data is collected on the subject. Efforts are

being made to be actively patrolling locations with high rates of intoxication and related

accidents. Most importantly, harsh penalties are being created in order to combat this large

issue. Connecticut, along with many other states is enacting a zero tolerance policy and is

cracking down on driving while intoxicated.

An important law put in place to help limit driving under the influence is the “Open

Container” laws. The law is usually as follows; (a) A person is guilty of drinking while operating

a motor vehicle when he drinks any alcoholic liquor while operating a motor vehicle upon a

public highway of this state or upon any road of any specially chartered municipal association or

of any district organized under the provisions of chapter 105, a purpose of which is the

construction and maintenance of roads and sidewalks, or in any parking area for ten cars or more,

or upon any private road on which a speed limit has been established in accordance with the

provisions of section 14-218a or upon any school property. As used in this section, "alcoholic

liquor" shall have the same meaning as in section 30-1.  (b) Drinking while operating a motor

vehicle is a class C misdemeanor. (CGS § 53a-213)

This law was created to help stop possible future DUI’s. Instead of just affecting drivers

who are already intoxicated, this law also stretches to those who may have not reached that .08

limit yet. As the driver continues to drink while operating a vehicle for an unknown length of

3

time, they may reach over their legal alcoholic limit and be of harm to themselves, or to others.

These laws will help control people who are prone to drinking and driving early on, and may

help reduce their recidivism rates in the future. This law is vital to maintaining the strict “no

drinking while driving” expectation that is anticipated for citizens. Looking at figure four (see

appendix), out of the 3,590,347 population that Connecticut has, 3,517 were found of being

guilty of having a BAC higher than the legal limit of .08. This number only represents the

number of people who have actually gotten caught in the act. If more methods were available to

catch potential intoxicated drivers, this number would increase dramatically.

Sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols allow law enforcement personnel to be

actively pursuing drunk drivers in concentrated areas. Unlike the previous laws which allow the

person to be stopped for actively breaking a law, these checkpoints allow randomized checking

of vehicles in a set area. By using randomization, officers have a greater chance of catching

violators of the law. These people may not show obvious signs of being under the influence such

as swerving into another lane, but can be detected in other ways such as the odor of alcohol on

the breath.

Both sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols have the same ends mean, but they are

not exactly the same. Sobriety checkpoints are operated by law enforcement agencies. They are

set up and displayed with warning signs so that incoming drivers can see the checkpoint.

Normally an alternative route is available before coming upon the checkpoint for drivers wanting

to avoid this check. An officer is normally stationed upon such route in order to observe the

vehicle to see if they avoided the check for any apparent reason. Once at the checkpoint, officers

will have a randomized checking pattern based upon the number of officers at the stop, and the

flow of traffic. They may also choose to stop all vehicles if the situation fits. The pattern must

4

be maintained though to show random selection and no bias. If signs of being under the

influence are present, then further testing can be performed. Sobriety checkpoints act as a

deterrent to the public about drinking and driving. If a driver sees frequent checkpoints in an

area, he will be less likely to drink and drive fearing he will be caught. By educating the public

and actually having them experience a checkpoint, intoxicated or not, that will place the fear of

being caught in their minds.

Saturation patrols on the other hand are slightly more serious than sobriety checkpoints.

A higher number of law enforcement is required for these patrols, along with those from other

agencies. A larger area is targeted which usually has had past DUI accidents, or a high number

of DUI’s in that location. Officers are more on guard looking for additional signs of driving

under the influence, usually resulting in a higher number of arrests. These two forms of active

policing are great methods for exposing hidden intoxicated drivers. They also provide a great

deterrence measures for new or previous offenders who may be likely to repeat their actions.

If a person is suspected of driving under the influence, they will be asked to complete a

field sobriety test. This test measures a person’s balance, speech, and other signs of impairment.

There are three parts to a standardized field sobriety test; The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

(HGN), the Walk and Turn (WAT), and lastly, the One Leg Stand (OLS). If any of these tests

are failed, or failed to a certain degree, the suspected person can be arrested under reasonable

suspicion of the officer.

The horizontal gaze nystagmus measures an involuntary eye jerk that naturally happens

when the eyes are gazing far to either the left or the right side. To conduct this test, an officer

takes a small object such as a pen or flashlight and has the person follow it. An intoxicated

5

person is more likely to have eye jerking movements looking straight on at the object, or have

more rapid jerks when looking to either side. Another indicator is if the person cannot follow the

object smoothly. This would also lead officers to assume the person is under the influence.

The walk and turn test requires a person to both perform, and listen to a task being given.

In this test, the person takes nine heel-to-toe steps, and then is asked to turn on one foot, and

return back in the same way. There are a number of indicators to look for during this test which

can give evidence towards intoxication. If the person cannot follow a straight line, or loses

balance those are clues towards intoxication. Less obvious clues are, if a person uses his arms

for balance, or if the person starts the test before all the instructions are given. These are also

signs of intoxication.

The one leg stand also measures balance but adds speech into the mix. The person is

expected to stand on one foot, with the other foot six inches off the ground. They are required to

count out loud to 30 seconds, and to keep their balance. Slurring of speech, poor balance,

swaying, and not lasting the allotted time are all signs of intoxication.

A study was performed in 1998 by Jack Stuster and Marcelline Burns on the validation of

the standardized field sobriety tests. They looked at 298 people’s DUI’s and conducted a study

on the effectiveness of each type of field sobriety test. The horizontal gaze nystagmus was 88%

reliable based upon the results. Next, the one legged stand test was 83% reliable. Lastly, the

walk and turn test came in at 79% reliability. When all three tests were combined, a 91%

reliability rate occurred. Based upon the number of fatal DUI accidents, a 91% reliability based

upon reasonable suspicion is very high. Even alone, these tests are in the higher percentile to

prove to be valid.

6

Trying to prevent DUI occurrences from happening and stopping them before any harm

is done is a main goal for law enforcement with this subject. Unfortunately, that is not a

probable occurrence. Those who have violated the law, receive harsh penalties based on their

lack of safety and concern of themselves and others. Violators will receive a mandatory

interlock system placed into their car systems. There is some debate over this issue ranging from

flaws within the system to being able to afford the device. The key variables that were observed

were race, income level, and if the offender had any prior offenses.

The Ignition Interlock Device works by being wired into the vehicles ignition in order to

control the starter. A person must blow into a tube connected to the ignition which measures

their blood alcohol level. The individual must blow below a .02 in order to start their car. If the

system measures any alcohol greater than the minimum amount, the car will not start. Any

tampering with the device will be tracked and reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles

when the device goes in for its monthly recalibration. A person will continuously have to blow

into their device if driving a long duration to ensure sobriety is still present. There are other

violations that may be penalized based upon circumstances, and are not limited to the ones

previously listed.

The Ignition Interlock Program requires any person who has violated any of the

following Connecticut Laws to have an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle(s).

Any person who has been charged with a violation may only operate motor vehicles(s) with the

device installed. The commissioner of motor vehicles can allow a person who has served up to

45 days of their suspension to have the interlock device installed. Lastly, if a first DUI is

received, a person has the option to install the device after their 45 day suspension period, or

may choose to lose their license for one year. In addition, upon the second DUI, a person may

7

have the device installed after the 45-day suspension period, or have their license taken away for

three years. Driving under the influence in Connecticut is operating a vehicle with a blood

alcohol level above .08.

Key variables and indicators are important factors in conducting research because they

show changes in data and can provide researchers with numerous amounts of information on

their subjects. Variables and their indicators can lead to hidden data, hidden trends, or even

unknown data. By analyzing each variable independently, data can be discovered with a smaller

margin of error. This allows for the dissection of each piece individually.

One important variable that was assessed was race. In figure one; you can see the

percentage of individuals who have driven drunk in Connecticut past the legal limit. Caucasians

have the highest percentage of driving under the influence, followed by American Indians,

Hispanics, African Americans, and lastly with the lowest number, Asians. Caucasians almost

double the amount of times they have drunk and drove as opposed to African Americans. Now, if

you look at figure two, you can see the percentage of each race that has actually been stopped by

authorities and issued a DUI. This percentage is much smaller compared to the individuals who

did not happen to get caught breaking the law. This figure hides the data by making it appear

that the numbers are appropriately weighed. Since more Caucasians conducted the survey, the

numbers are skewed. After doing some calculations, the number of people who drive under the

influence compared to the number of people who have physically received a DUI was compared

to each other. Figure three shows what would be a good estimate of the true percentages of

people who would be stopped for a DUI based on figures one and two. We can see here that the

races with the lowest amount of people who have drank and driven or have gotten caught, are

significantly higher. This indication reflects back directly to the variable of race. This can either

8

mean that police are being biased with their stops, or that certain individuals are becoming

increasingly stealthy at hiding their illegal and dangerous actions. Due to having such big flaws

in the system of catching potential DUI’s, the interlock system would help to eliminate the

margin of error.

Another variable that was examined was poverty. Having to install an ignition interlock

device is not cost friendly and will not be an option to every person who is convicted of a DUI.

After an individual has had their license taken away, a $175 restoration fee must be paid to the

department of motor vehicles. To obtain the ignition interlock device, a $100 administration fee

must be paid. If the individual owns multiple cars, legally the device needs to be installed on all

of them. This would add another $100 per car. On top of these payments, each month the device

must be brought in for calibration which costs $50. If payments are not made, or if it is not

brought in within five days of the calibration date, additional fees and penalties will be added.

Right off the bat this device will cost an individual around $350, not including additional

penalties or fees. According to the Department of Economic and Community Development, in

Connecticut only 63% of residents are employed while 37%, and probably more, are declared

unemployed and not in any civilian labor force. With these statistics, it makes it impossible for

almost half of Connecticut residents to be able to afford an interlock system according to their

employment status. This can leave poverty stricken people to fall deeper into debt. By losing

their driving privileges, some people may have to quit their job because they may not have a way

to get to work. Other people may continue to drive with a suspended license and suffer harsher

penalties if caught. By losing the privilege to drive by not being able to afford the device, they

may also remain or become unemployed in the process.

9

The last variable that was observed was if an individual had a past DUI to observe

recidivism rates. A Cochrane Review was done, which is a scientific investigation of obtaining

information, and 11 studies on the installation of interlock devices were conducted. The

experiment results showed a 40% decrease in the amount of re-arrest rates for first time

offenders and a 22% decrease for repeat offenders who have had their devices removed. These

numbers represent a noticeably lower recidivism rate among DUI offenders. If you take a look

again at figure four, the chart shows some statistics from 2013. Compared to Connecticut’s

population, not too many DUI’s were administered. If you look at that number alone though, it

is quite large, especially for the severity and dangerousness of the offense. Out of the 3,517

DUI’s that were issued, less than half of Connecticut residents had Interlock Devices installed.

This means that the larger proportions of people are currently unlicensed. By having the

Interlock Device installed, it requires participants to learn from their mistakes and take

responsibility by being allowed to drive, while proving that they are in fact above the influence.

If they do not have the device, many people will still continue to drive without a license, and

reoffend until they are caught again.

On July 1, 2015 a new and improved law will go into effect concerning the

implementation of Ignition Interlock Devices. On August 11, 2014, Governor Dannel P. Malloy

signed a new law that will require the devices to be installed for every DUI offense, especially

first time offenses. “Research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control indicates that first-time

offenders have driven drunk at least 80 times before they are arrested,” “Ignition interlock

devices are effective in reducing repeat drunk driving offenses by 67%. It is expected that the

Connecticut law, which goes into effect July 2015, will saves lives in our state.” (Margolis 2014

para. 6) Connecticut is working on a zero tolerance policy in order to lower the amount of

10

drinking and driving in the state. Since this law is new, ratifications will be made to make the

law as effective and beneficial as possible.

After conducting research on this law, a number of downfalls to this device have been

discovered. For some people, the device is too expensive and is not an available option for them

to choose from, making them having to side with getting their licenses suspended. In order to

counter act this problem, a reward type of system should be instilled. For every month of safe

driving that is performed, along with following all the regulations laid out, the monthly rate of

the device can decrease for the offender until they have served out their term. Another present

problem is tampering or trying to trick the device. The main part of the device should be secured

under lock and key by the department of motor vehicles so that only they have access to the

device. Furthermore, some sort of security measures should be put in place in order to make sure

that the person, who is using the device, is in fact the person who has received the DUI. A lot of

worry has been associated with having another person take the test for them. Security cameras

could be used and turned on only when the offender has to blow into the device in order to

monitor them.

With the implementation of the new law in July of 2015, requiring all first time offenders

to have the device installed, a lot more negative aspects to this device shall be resolved. Since

offenders are usually likely to reoffend, this will stop all chances of reoffending. The person

physically will not be able to turn on their car while they are under the influence of alcohol.

Since first time offenders usually drive an average of 80 times before they get caught with a

DUI, this rate will dramatically decrease, decreasing drunk driving rates all around. With the

new implementation, about 5,000 devices will be instilled in the upcoming year. With this influx

of installations, any bugs should be discovered and sorted out as they are presented.

11

Based on research and data collected, the Connecticut Ignition Interlock Program is

effective in reducing rates of recidivism and drunken driving related penalties. The few

variables that were selected, race, income level, and prior offenses showed indicators relating

directly back to the law. Recidivism rates showed a low number after ignition interlock devices

were installed, compared to those who have had their licenses revoked. In the future, all

offenders will require these devices, and a bigger drop in recidivism should be present. Even

though this law is new, it shows promising results which we have seen a small, but steady

change in. Since the law is still quite new, it is being continuously ratified, as more information

becomes known on the subject.

12

C O N C L U S I O N

The fight against drinking and driving in recent years has grown tremendously. New

laws, methods, and programs are being created as more information is collected on this subject.

In order for enforcement to be proactive in stopping this fight, the different tactics must be

measured based on their effectiveness and modified due to those results. Even as the methods

and tactics of enforcement have increased, there is still a high rate of intoxicated drivers on the

roads who are being caught daily. “Research has indicated, however, that most impaired drivers

never get arrested. Police stop some drivers, but often miss signs of impairment. Estimates

revealed that as many as 2,000 alcohol-impaired driving trips occur for every arrest, and, even

when special drinking-- driving enforcement patrols are conducted, as many as 300 trips occur

for each arrest.” (Greene, 2003) Completely putting a stop to driving under the influence is a

hard task, and is a problem that may never be completely solved. By continuously studying this

topic, and as more information is released, methods can be modified to suit the issue in the best

possible way. With the new implementation of mandatory vehicle interlock systems, alongside

with rules, regulations, and programs already out there, hopefully we will continue to see a

decrease in this dangerous situation.

13

A P P E N D I C E S

White American Indian

Hispanic African American

Asian0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500 2,227

41 126 164 35

Driven Under The Influence In Connecticut

Figure 1

White American Indian African American Asian0

50

100

150

200

250 238

13 205

Stopped By Police for DUI

Figure 2

14

9%

12.20%

14%

32%

DUI Rate per Race (weighted)

White

African American

Asian

American Indian

Figure 3

Connecticut Statistics 2013

Population 3,590,347

Number of DUI’s 3,517

Number of Interlock Devices Installed 1,162

Fatal Alcohol Impaired Crashes 90

Figure 4

15

R E F E R E N C E S

Alcohol and Public Policy Group. (2010). Alcohol: No ordinary commodity. 105, 769-779

Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02945.x/full

Alcohol-Impaired Driving. (2014). Insurance institute for highway safety, highway loss data

institute. Retrieved from http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/laws/dui?topicName=alcohol-

impaired-driving

Drew, L. (2008). National survey of drinking and driving attitudes and behaviors. Retrieved

from http://www.consuls.org/record=b3231076~S16

Elder. (2013). Effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and

alcohol-related crashes. Retrieved from

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/mvoi/PIIS07493 79710007105.pdf

Fazzalaro, J. (2002). Repeat offender definition and other federal requirements for state DWI

laws. Retrieved from http://www.cga.state.ct. us/2002/olrdata/tra/rpt/2002-R-0087.htm.

Fielder, K., Brittle, C., & Stafford, S. (2012). Case studies of ignition interlock programs.

U.S. Department of Transportation.

Frisman, P. (2012). State ignition interlock laws. Retrieved from http://cdm15019.contentdm.

oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p128501coll2/id/183498

Greene, J. (2003). Battling DUI: A comparative analysis of checkpoints and saturation patrols

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com

Margolis, J., & Malloy, D. (2014). Malloy: New state ignition interlock law will help prevent

accidents caused by impaired drivers. Retrieved from http://www.governor.ct.gov/malloy/

cwp/view.asp?A=4010&Q=551072

16

Smith, G. (2014). New law expected to increase number of interlock ignition devices. Retrieved

from http://www.theday.com/article/20140811/NWS04/140819927/1047

Stuster, J., & Burns, M. (1998). validation of the standardized field sobriety test battery at bacs

below 0.10 percent. Retrieved from http://www.drugdetection.net

Tremont, P. (2000). Racial and ethnic differences in drinking and driving attitudes and

behaviors. U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.gov/

About+NHTSA/Traffic+Techs/current/Racial+And+Ethnic+Differences+In+Drinking+And

+Driving+Attitudes+And+Behaviors

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2001). development of a standardized field sobriety test.

Retrieved from http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/alcohol/sfst/appendix_a.htm

Willis C, Lybrand S, Bellamy N. (2004) Alcohol ignition interlock programs for reducing drink

driving recidivism. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3. Retrieved from

http://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com