Effects of Enhanced Sanctions for Higher BACs

As of March 2001, 29 U.S. states had provided enhanced sanctions for high-BAC impaired driving offenders. Minnesota’s high-BAC statute, implemented in 1998, resulted in more severe case dispositions for high-BAC offenders than for other offenders. Overall dispositions for first and repeat offenders were more severe after the law, and the rate of alcohol test refusals was stable. The effective implementation of the law may be due to strong administrative sanctions and laws for test refusals, and the relatively high BAC threshold for enhanced sanctions of .20. Introduction Arguably, one of the predominant recent concerns of the highway safety community in the U.S. has been the development of countermeasures that target high-risk individuals variously referred to as hard core, persistent, or repeat drinking drivers. There is no single operational definition for this group, but two criteria are often applied: evidence of repeated drinking and driving, such as repeat convictions, and a “high” blood alcohol concentration (BAC). An increasing number of U.S. states have enacted statutes that enable enhanced sanctions for high-BAC offenders. The primary objective is to reduce recidivism among this group of high-risk offenders by increasing the certainty and severity of punishment and by reducing “loopholes” in the system. High-BAC sanctioning systems are based on evidence that alcohol-impaired driving offenders with higher BACs are more likely than offenders with lower BACs to be involved in a crash (1) and to recidivate (2). Although not conclusive, an association between a high BAC and symptoms of alcohol abuse or dependency is suggested by some research (3). Several highway safety organizations recommend that states adopt high-BAC sanctioning systems. Under the federal alcohol-impaired driving grant program for states (“410 program”), the criteria for a programmatic basic grant include a program targeting high-BAC drivers. To qualify, the state’s high-BAC threshold must be less than or equal to .20 and higher than the standard per se level, and the enhanced high-BAC sanctions must be mandatory and apply to both first and repeat offenses. Despite the focus on high-BAC sanctioning systems, the study described here is the first systematic research on the implementation or effects of such systems. Methods States’ high-BAC sanctioning systems were identified and described, and state officials were interviewed about their experiences with a high-BAC system. The following summary of states’ laws is taken from a more extensive review (4). Process and outcome evaluations of the relatively strong high-BAC systems in Minnesota and Washington are being conducted. Results on the implementation and effects of Minnesota’s law, implemented January 1, 1998, are presented below. The data for these analyses, extracted from the state driver license files in late spring 2001, were provided by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. Profiles of first and repeat impaired driving (termed DWI) offenses for the years 1998-2000 were developed, based on the alcohol test result and driver’s age and gender. Analyses examined whether high-BAC offenders received the statutory enhanced dispositions, and whether these dispositions were more severe than those received by non-high-BAC offenders. As offenders’ BAC results were not placed on the driver record prior to 1998, dispositions after the law for all first and repeat offenders were compared to such dispositions in 1997. Summary of States’ Laws As of March 2001, 27 states had a statute and 2 states had a regulation or rule that provided enhanced sanctions for high-BAC offenders. Most high-BAC statutes were enacted since 1990; 10 states implemented high-BAC laws since 1998. States reported little opposition to the highBAC legislation, and some noted widespread support. In the 29 states, the high-BAC threshold ranges from .15 to .20; most commonly, it is .15 (12 states). In selecting the threshold, some states chose the state’s mean BAC or a BAC equal to double the standard per se level. Even when focusing solely on first offenders, high-BAC sanctioning systems vary widely in terms of the types and severity of enhanced sanctions, whether the sanctions are mandatory, and whether they apply to both first and repeat offenders. Some states have adopted high-BAC sanctions for a first offense that are comparable to those for a second offense, a BAC test refusal, or an offense with another “aggravating” circumstance. In 10 states, the enhanced sanctions include longer or more intensive alcohol education or treatment. Other types of sanctions include limitations on plea reductions or deferred judgments; driver-based punitive sanctions (for example, license suspension); vehicle-based punitive sanctions (for example, ignition interlock); and courts’ consideration of a high BAC in sentencing as an aggravating or special factor. Some states with high-BAC sanctioning systems have reported concerns or problems. The most common concern was that high-BAC sanctions may increase the number of alcohol test refusals if the state’s penalties for refusal are insufficiently strong. Other concerns included the following: 1) high-BAC sanctions may further complicate an already complex system; 2) plea bargains and deferred judgment programs may allow offenders to evade the high-BAC sanctions; 3) courts may view the enhanced penalties as onerous and, thus, fail to impose them, even if mandatory; 4) a larger proportion of offenses may require adjudication by higher level courts; and 5) jail overcrowding or increased incarceration costs or the limited availability of treatment programs in some areas may limit the effectiveness of these sanctions. Effects of Minnesota’s High-BAC Sanctions Minnesota’s high-BAC sanctioning system was implemented January 1, 1998. Penalties for standard repeat offenses also were strengthened at that time. The state’s impaired driving statutes were restructured, simplified, and strengthened in several respects in a recodification, effective January 1, 2001. However, the following analyses are based on the statutes in effect during the years covered by this study, 1997-2000. Description of high-BAC statutes Minnesota’s high-BAC threshold, .20, is double the state’s .10 per se limit. Enhanced penalties for a high-BAC offense include pre-conviction administrative sanctions and court sanctions that are mandatory, substantial, and applicable to both first and subsequent offenses. In comparison with a non-high-BAC first offense, a high-BAC first offense was classified (according to 19982000 statutes) as a Gross Misdemeanor II rather than a Misdemeanor, with associated penalties comparable to those for a standard repeat offense. The enhanced penalties included a mandatory minimum jail sentence (versus a non-mandatory minimum sentence), a quadrupling of the mandatory minimum fine, a doubling of administrative pre-conviction and post-conviction license revocations, and restrictions on release from jail after arrest. In addition, high-BAC first offenders received a pre-conviction administrative license plate impoundment. In Minnesota, all persons who are convicted of a DWI offense or plead guilty to a reduced offense must submit to an alcohol use assessment. For any offense involving a high BAC, the court must order the offender to submit to the level of care recommended by the assessment. Minnesota’s DWI laws rely heavily on mandatory administrative license and vehicle sanctions for “implied consent violations” (failing or refusing the alcohol test). A test refusal is a criminal offense, and statutes define a “qualified prior impaired driving incident” as either a prior conviction or a prior DWI-related loss of license. During the study period there were small differences in the definition of a repeat offense among different sanctions and over time. To provide a consistent basis for comparison, the study defined repeat offenders as those with a prior incident within the past five years or two or more incidents in the past 10 years. Characteristics of DWI offenses 1997-2000 The number of DWI offenses (including administrative license revocations and convictions) totaled 32,625 in 1997, the year prior to the high-BAC law; 33,662 in 1998; 35,832 in 1999; and 35,737 in 2000. In all four years, about 29 percent of offenses were repeat offenses. Also in all four years, female drivers committed about 20 percent of first offenses and 14 percent of repeat offenses. With regard to the age distribution of offenders, the percentage of drivers ages 21-24 increased gradually from 1997 to 2000, rising from 17 percent to 20 percent for first offenses and from 14 percent to 17 percent for repeat offenses. A comparable decline occurred in the percentage of drivers ages 25-34 (32 percent to 28 percent for first offenses and 40 percent to 36 percent for repeat offenses). In all four years, drivers under 21 years of age represented about a tenth of first offenders and 4 percent of repeat offenders; drivers 35-54 represented 36 percent of first offenders and 40 percent of repeat offenders; and drivers 55 years and older represented 5 percent of first offenders and 3 percent of repeat offenders. Patterns of alcohol test results Alcohol test results for 1998 and 2000 (Table 1) indicate 17-18 percent of offenders had a BAC at or above .20. Repeat offenders were twice as likely as first offenders to refuse the alcohol test and were more likely to have a BAC at or above .20. A smaller proportion of both first and repeat offenders in 2000 had a high BAC, compared to 1998, and a larger proportion had a BAC below .15. Although the percentage point changes were small, they were statistically significant for first offenders (X= 84.5, df = 5, p<.001), repeat offenders (X= 28.8, df = 5, p<.001), and overall (X=104.8, df = 5, p<.001). The estimated test refusal rate in 1997 was 12.7 percent for first offenders, 22.2 percent for repeat offenders, and 15.5 percent overall. The rate of refusals did not increase after the high-BAC law. Table 1 also shows that a lower high-BAC threshold (for example, .15) would affect a much larger proportion of offenders. Table 1: Alcohol test results for first and repeat DWI offenses: Minnesota, 1998 and 200