Adjudication

Preliminary research findings of the TIRF report DWI System Improvements for Dealing with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Adjudication and Sanctioning, provided a starting place for the identification of problem areas and solutions in the adjudication phase of the handling of impaired drivers in the criminal justice system. The report was pending publication at the time of the summit. The research findings came from work done with judges, probation and parole professionals.

Problem	Solution
1. Sentence monitoring	Centralize reporting process through probation; increased contact with offender; specialized DWI courts
2. Evidentiary issues	Opportunities for judicial education on DWI evidentiary issues; legislation on refusals and simplify statutory requirements for arrest and processing procedures
3. Caseload	More judges to reduce caseloads; specialized DWI courts; mandatory alcohol evaluations
4. Motions and continuances	Stricter adherence to case processing guidelines
5. Failure to appear	Make bond/bail conditions of release on arrest warrants for FTA; hold offenders in custody; develop transportation and cost-sharing agreements between neighboring jurisdictions
6. Records	Improve quality of data gathered; uniform driver abstracts; pre-sentence reports; make an alcohol evaluation certificate a condition of bond
7. Sentencing Disparity	Access to scientific evaluations of sanctions; expand use of DWI courts; tiered penalties
8. Mandatory minimum	sentences Include alternative and creative sentencing options in mandatory minimums; update legislation; allocate more resources to permit sentences to be imposed
9. Juries	Evidence of test refusal should be admissible at trial; admit evidence of priors; eliminate jury trial option

High court caseloads and the inability of judges to effectively monitor and enforce DWI sentences were consistently seen as significant DWI system challenges when it comes to hard core DWI offenders. The Summit recommendations did not support the use of mandatory minimum sentences in DWI cases. Judicial training on DWI issues was identified as a critical need. A need to resolve administrative hearing officer issues was also identified as a priority.

The Promise of DWI/Drug Courts

There are 58 DWI/Drug Courts in operation in the United States and 10 more are in the planning phases. Based on the drug court model, these courts work to hold offenders with addictions accountable for their actions, while keeping them in treatment long enough to receive its benefits. Drug courts are diversion programs that use the power of judges and the cooperation of prosecutors, corrections and the treatment community to treat drug and alcohol addicted offenders. Judge Michael Kavanaugh, who presides over a DWI/Drug court in Albuquerque, New Mexico, described several aspects of his court:

Random, frequent breathalyzer and urine testing.

Graduated sanctioning for those who relapse.

Offenders meet with probation officers twice per week.

The court provides progress reports.

Offenders attend treatment twice per week. Some go through sessions of acupuncture which has shown to be effective on cravings, and they must attend 12 step meetings, such as alcoholics anonymous (AA). Offenders must maintain contact with their AA sponsor.

Counseling sessions are offered.

30 hours of community service is mandated.

Offenders must attend MADD victim impact panels.

Offenders must hold jobs or be in school; those without a high school diploma must complete the GED.

Judges have more personal contact with offenders.

Trust is developed between the judge and the offender.

Preliminary research indicates that the New Mexico DWI court has a 10.5 percent recidivism rate, compared to 35 percent for those who do not go through the DWI/Drug court. Judge Kavanaugh stated that he would like to see a DWI/Drug court in every state and encouraged the audience to lend their support for a national movement to expand the DWI/Drug court model.

High court caseloads negatively affect the disposition of DWI cases and a number of ways were recommended that judges can better manage their dockets and improve opportunities to address repeat and hard core DWI offenders.

A number of options were recommended to increase opportunities for courts to follow through and enforce sanctions against DWI offenders, including greater use of DWI courts to increase offender accountability and reduce recidivism.

One recommendation stated that mandatory minimum sentencing is the "worst thing for DWI," because the policy takes discretion away from judges and tends to increase the use of jury trials, creating more opportunities for hard core DWI offenders to escape adequate sanctioning.

Judicial education and training must be improved especially with regard to the technical parts of DWI investigations.

Administrative hearing officers are often poorly trained and do not know how to limit the administrative hearing to the relevant issues and procedures.