This appendix contains descriptions of DWI enforcement procedures for eleven jurisdictions based on telephone discussions with police officers and prosecutors. The information captured was used in conjunction with other information to formulate the baseline system described in the report.

We ask readers to note that laws in some states have changed since the discussions. Also, the acronyms "DWI" and "DUI" are used throughout this appendix, depending on which term was in use at each site. Readers should also note that the information presented here reflects the opinions and attitudes of those who were contacted, often expressed in their own words. We have made no attempt to obtain any confirmation from other sources or from separate studies.

The large amount of paperwork and processing time required for DWI arrests remain the biggest problem for police officers contacted. Officers almost everywhere complained of the complicated process and the need for documentation of minute details of each case. This level of detail is apparently necessary in many locations to "cover all of the bases" should the officer be required to testify at an administrative or court hearing.

Some areas have planned DWI enforcement with both police and states attorneys present so that procedures hold up in court. We also heard about streamlining the arrest process by releasing suspects directly from a checkpoint site, rather than transporting suspects to jail or police headquarters for processing; this is done under stringent guidelines approved by the courts. Also, at one site, when a case is dropped, officers are notified and memos are written to administration to point out what has happened and the reasons.

Specially trained anti-DWI enforcement officers have resulted in increased arrest rates in some areas. Because general patrol officers can call for specially trained officers to handle arrests and processing of DWI suspects, they are willing to apprehend more DWI suspects. Also, the specialized officers will testify if necessary which, reportedly, can be an intimidating process for officers unfamiliar with the often complicated DWI adjudication process. A less experienced officer who has spent hours on the witness stand "on a simple DWI case who is being questioned by a good defense attorney is afraid; they don't want to go through that experience again." If the suspect is a multiple offender, or has a good attorney, the attorney will badger the officer to the point where "you are looking at your whole credibility going out the window, and you're trying to fight just to tell them what you saw."

Most times policies and procedures are in place for officers to follow when handling DWI suspects, but officers have told us they do not always follow procedures. Specialized anti-DWI enforcement officers often recommend additional training for all officers to aid in the detection and processing of DWI suspects and to stress proper procedures. In several instances we heard about police officers who do not want to handle suspects; "they'd just as soon if they see one they think is drunk, turn ...to get away from it...if we had every officer who was on the ball looking and would follow his instincts on DUIs, we'd probably have twice as many DUI arrests." Another officer would like to see nationwide certified training in DWI detection and arrest procedures. He discussed how training at Northwestern University Traffic Institute is highly recognized in courts and thinks if anti-DWI training can be raised to the same level, it would cut down on court time and save money spent on cases. "Block training" programs were discussed in several locations as a solution to scarce funds for training. Officers are sent to formal training programs and then return and train other officers in the department who did not attend.

Administrative hearings are problematic in several areas because defense attorneys use these hearings as a source for finding out details about the case which help them decide the most beneficial way to handle the case in judicial proceedings. These hearings often do not focus on their intended purpose, which is whether the driver license suspension will stand or fall, but instead have become "free depositions" requiring substantial amounts of the officers' time. And there are no prosecutors present to advise the officers.

Several prosecutors we talked with were overwhelmed with DWI cases (1,200-1,300 per year) on top of other types of cases. The most recent trend has been to add more police officers, but not more judges, court rooms, prosecutors or public defenders. "You just can't tinker with one aspect of the system. You just can't add cops and think problems will get better; they will get worse. Then, there are more cases which get lost...." Prosecutors believe that there needs to be more and better communication between the law enforcement administrators and the district attorney's and prosecutor's offices as to what is enforced and how. Otherwise, "a bunch of cases come in which are questionable in that they might not follow state statute, which means it might not be possible to prosecute successfully, resulting in lost or dismissed cases" which angers the cops and possibly the public. Or it sends a message that someone can get away with that particular offense. At these sites, it is also difficult if not impossible to find the time to properly prepare for a case.

And, finally, there are sites where a significant number of individuals arrested for DWI disappear and their cases are not resolved. This is a problem which needs to be addressed.

Following are the highlights of the discussions, separated by site.