Drug-impaired driving demands police, legislative and community attention because of the harms it may cause. Many of the problems associated with drug-impaired driving are similar to those associated with drunk driving. However, recent evidence suggests that the prevalence of drug-impaired driving may be equal to, or perhaps higher than, that of drunk driving.1 And although the general trend of driving under the influence of alcohol has been declining in recent years in many countries, thanks, in large part, to broader and persistent attention to this problem, drug-impaired driving specifically linked to traffic fatalities appears to be rising.2 To date, however, a historical focus on drunk driving has somewhat limited law enforcement and policy attention on drug-impaired driving.
Drug-impaired driving is just one aspect of the larger set of problems related to drug use and impaired driving. This guide is limited to addressing the particular harms associated with drug-impaired driving. Related problems not directly addressed in this guide, each of which requires separate analysis, include the following:
Some of these related problems are covered in other guides in this series, all of which are listed at the end of this guide. For the most up-to-date listing of current and future guides, see www.popcenter.org.
Drug-impaired driving - which generally refers to a driver operating a vehicle while having a measurable quantity of a drug (legal or illegal) in the body that impairs driving performance - is a major road and safety concern in many countries, according to a wide variety of sources. In 2009 in the United States, about 4 percent of drivers (or 10.5 million) were drug impaired while driving.3 Among high school seniors, drug-impaired (specifically, marijuana-impaired) driving rates may be higher (about 14 percent from 2001 to 2006) than those of the general population.4 Roadside surveys of drivers’ oral fluid and blood samples reveal that among all weekend nighttime drivers, over 16 percent tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter drugs, any of which could impair driving.5 Estimates of the prevalence of drug-impaired driving across different countries - including Australia,6 Germany.7 Canada,8 and New Zealand,9 among others - vary considerably. Regardless of the rate, the problem merits police attention, given the potential harms.
According to a number of studies, young males between the ages of 17 and 24 are at the highest risk for drug-impaired driving offending and victimization,10 although female involvement is increasing.11 Among high school seniors, drug-impaired driving occurs across multiple demographic groups, although lifestyle factors tend to play a stronger role in predicting such driving.12 Persistent offenses of drug-impaired driving among males have been linked to marijuana dependence; early traffic violations, nontraffic violations and convictions before age 18; and personality characteristics such as a weaker ability to control one’s behavior, to avoid harm, and to respect tradition during the offending driver’s teens.13 In Finland, drugged driving is associated with low education and high unemployment, receiving disability pensions, and higher rates of divorce or living alone.14 Given the varying ways in which these studies have been conducted, there is good reason to believe that many drug-impaired drivers are never detected.
Driving under the influence of marijuana - the most commonly used illicit drug - may actually be more common than driving under the influence of alcohol in some countries.15 Some marijuana users perceive marijuana to be a safe drug to use before driving and thus indicate that changes in laws may not influence their future decisions to continue using marijuana before driving.16 These perceptions are particularly troubling given the decriminalization and the changes in medical-marijuana laws that are occurring, or that have already occurred, in the United States and elsewhere. Indeed, driving under the influence of marijuana increases the risk of being involved in motor vehicle crashes.17 However, the drug-impaired driving problem extends well beyond the use of marijuana and includes the use of a wide variety of legal drugs (including those prescribed and those obtained over the counter) and illegal drugs - which include stimulants, depressants, antidepressants, narcotics, hallucinogens, sleeping pills, and other intoxicating substances.18
Drug-impaired driving can damage communities in a number of ways, many of which are similar to the harms associated with drunk driving.†
These harms can include the following:
† See Problem-Specific Guide No. 36, Drunk Driving, for further information.
Understanding the factors that contribute to your problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.
Jurisdictions with significant local drug market activity likely have correspondingly high drug-impaired driving problems, notwithstanding the availability of mass transportation or the proximity of users to illicit markets. To the extent that drugs, including prescription drugs, are readily available and easily obtainable, whether through illicit markets on or off the street, through legitimate or illegitimate (usually recreational) prescription markets or through other means (e.g., Internet-based purchasing, nightclub transactions, concert distribution, discreet markets, and medical marijuana outlets), the risk of increased drug-impaired driving is higher when and where drugs are readily available. Certain drugs or drug categories may be more risky than others,25 although a number of factors affect the level of impairment, including dosage, frequency of use, and use of other substances.
Open-air drive-by drug markets (those to which users drive up and purchase drugs without getting out of their cars) are of particular concern because potential users are already in vehicles as drugs are being purchased, and those buyers may return for additional drugs within a matter of minutes or hours, depending on the particular substance. In addition, jurisdictions that have difficulty controlling access to legal prescriptions or that have particularly high rates of prescription drug use within their populations (e.g., jurisdictions that mainly include elderly persons or that include large groups of mentally ill patients who are medicated) might create substantial public safety challenges. Finally, jurisdictions with relaxed drug laws (e.g., allowing the use of medical marijuana or decriminalizing the use of marijuana) might also have higher rates of drug-impaired driving.
Image1: Drive-by drug purchases, such as the one pictured here, are of particular concern as users are already in vehicles.
Drug use can affect users’ perceptions of the risks associated with substance use, can alter decisions and influence behaviors and can decrease user concerns with apprehension. Despite evidence to the contrary, some marijuana users26 and users of other drugs27 perceive minimal risk associated with driving following substance use, and perceptions of risk seem to vary across different drugs and drug use patterns.28 As a result, some drug users are more likely and more willing to drive while impaired, and their willingness to do so can affect other drug users, who may then be inclined to drive following their own drug use at some point in the future. To the extent that drug-impaired drivers successfully make it to their destinations and avoid being apprehended by police, their willingness to continue to use drugs while driving increases risks for other drivers as well.
Using multiple drugs simultaneously or using drugs in combination with alcohol significantly impedes driving performance,29 which is a particularly important concern in situations or places where alcohol and drugs are readily available and consumed simultaneously (such as nightclubs, parties, raves, and concerts). For example, nightclub attendees in Australia reported both recent drug use and a likelihood of driving home with someone who is drug impaired and, possibly alcohol impaired as well.30 Although some rave attendees have reported higher levels of concern with impaired drivers,31 young people, in particular, are willing to accept rides from drugged drivers.32 In addition, a prior experience of driving while drug impaired increases the likelihood of doing so again; it also increases the chances of accepting rides with others who are drug impaired.33
The information provided above is only a generalized description of drug-impaired driving. You must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy.
In addition to criminal justice agencies, the following groups have an interest in the drug-impaired driving problem and should be consulted when gathering information about the problem and responding to it.
The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your local problem of drug-impaired driving, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses later on.
Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the intended results.
Ideally, you should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether your responses have been effective. You should take all measures in both the target area and the surrounding area. For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 1, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers and Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 10, Analyzing Crime Displacement and Diffusion.
The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to drug-impaired driving. Process measures demonstrate the extent to which the responses were properly implemented. Outcome measures demonstrate the extent to which the responses reduced the level or severity of the problem.
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses for addressing the problem.
The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies, government initiatives and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community problem.
It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances and that you can justify each response on the basis of reliable analysis of accurate data. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem.
Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: carefully consider whether others in your community share responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it. The responsibility of responding, in some cases, may need to be shifted toward those who have the capacity to implement more effective responses. (For more detailed information on shifting and sharing responsibility, see Response Guide No. 3, Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety Problems).
For further information on managing the implementation of response strategies, see Problem-Solving Tools Guide No. 7, Implementing Responses to Problems.
Generally, any enforcement, intervention or prevention programs that attempt to minimize or delay onset of illicit substance use can also help reduce incidents of drug-impaired driving.α
In addressing drug-impaired driving, you would do well to begin by examining your local strategies for responding to drunk driving and considering using parts of that framework as a starting point for responding to drug-impaired driving.β The lessons we have learned about drunk driving can directly inform many of our responses to drug-impaired driving. For example, first-time drunk-driving offenders can likely be influenced and persuaded to desist, but repeat offenders’ behavior is far more difficult to change, and they are at increased risk of continued offending.34 Therefore, you should consider adopting different sets of responses that address first-time drug-impaired drivers and repeat offenders.35
α For further information on addressing the broader issues related to drug use, readers are encouraged to review the POP Guides on Drug Dealing in Open-Air Drug Markets (No.31), Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes (No.4), Clandestine Methamphetamine Labs (No.16), Rave Parties (No.14), and Prescription Fraud (No.24).
β See Problem-Specific Guide No. 36, Drunk Driving for further information.
1. Implementing per se (also known as “zero-tolerance”) laws. Many jurisdictions have implemented per se laws in which a specified level of an illicit drug found in the body of a driver is, in and of itself, defined as an offense. Within the context of illegal drugs, zero-tolerance laws include those that set the limit of illicit drugs at the minimal drug detection level. Therefore, under zero-tolerance laws, it may not be necessary to prove that drivers were actually impaired but only to demonstrate that they had a detectable amount of an illegal drug in their body while driving.36 Other states, and some scientists, have an interest in identifying reasonable detection levels that suggest impairment by some substances (including marijuana).37 Nevertheless, zero-tolerance laws, while not necessarily improving the enforcement of the laws, appear to improve prosecution rates in some states.38 Broader adoption of zero-tolerance laws has been carefully studied and recommended.39 However, actual enforcement of zero-tolerance laws may be challenging, because police officers may still need to use the premise of perceived impairment as the justification for a traffic stop. Therefore, per se and zero-tolerance laws may ultimately focus attention primarily on drivers who are substantially impaired, as opposed to the larger population of drivers who have illicit substances in their bodies.40 Furthermore, per se and zero-tolerance laws may not include drug-impaired drivers who are using prescription or over-the-counter medications (because possession, as determined by a laboratory or field test of those drugs, may not be illegal, in and of itself).
2. Developing drug-impaired driver courts. Drug-impaired driver courts, generally modeled on drug courts, have been developed and implemented in South Dakota and in Erie/Niagara, New York.41 These specialized courts have been used to respond to first-time offenders, but they mostly target high-risk and repeat offenders and are focused on managing substance abuse problems, one of which is drug-impaired driving. Because initial evaluations and reviews of these kinds of intervention efforts are promising, like the evaluation and review of drug court effectiveness overall, much broader adoption of drug-impaired driver courts should be encouraged, given the cost of trying offenders in drug courts compared with the cost of their incarceration,42 especially for serious recidivists.43
3. Implementing or improving on-site, point-of-contact (field) drug-testing devices and protocols. A number of drug-screening devices are available for use in the field. One initial evaluation suggested that Los Angeles police officers were quite effective at field testing, although there was some room for improvement.44 However, a larger study that examined a wide variety of testing methods across a broad array of substances suggested that no devices can yet be recommended.45 As a result, continued development of drug-testing devices that ensure accuracy, reliability and usability is necessary.
4. Standardizing lab- and field-testing protocols. Uniformity in lab and field drug-testing standards and protocols is also important. Professional organizations such as the American Board of Forensic Toxicology (ABFT), the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors/ Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASLD/LAB) and other similar entities should continue to take the lead in aligning laboratory standards internationally and ensuring consistency in lab processes and protocols.46 Standardization of testing protocols can also assist police in preparing cases that can be efficiently prosecuted and that can withstand legal and judicial scrutiny.
5. Suspending, restricting, or revoking driving privileges. Motor vehicle departments typically have administrative and legal protocols in place for restricting, suspending or revoking driving privileges for impaired drivers, and these responses have been effective.47 The same protocols could be (and in some jurisdictions already are) applied to drug-impaired drivers. It seems clear, however, that relying solely on these measures has not been effective - especially for persistent drinkers. It likely follows that these approaches, if implemented as a primary response, would be equally ineffective for persistent drug users, including users of intravenous drugs who are frequently convicted of drug-impaired driving.48 First-time drug-impaired driving offenders, however, may be more effectively influenced to change their behavior by various methods of restricting driving privileges. And some evidence suggests that “use and lose” laws, which include those that authorize driver-licensing actions against persons found to be using, or in possession of, illicit drugs, and against underage persons found to be drinking, purchasing or in possession of alcoholic beverages, improve public safety and reduce subsequent traffic violations overall.49
Many departments use officers trained as drug recognition experts at sobriety checkpoints such as the one pictured here.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia Commons (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sobriety_checkpoint_easthaven_ct.jpg)
7. Training police officers to be drug recognition experts. Many police departments have trained some officers as drug recognition experts. These experts rely on a standardized process for assessing whether a suspect is drug impaired.53 The use of this systematic approach has assisted many prosecutors in prosecuting drug-impaired driving offenders, although the reliability of the process and the admissibility of the evidence have been subjected to substantial legal challenges.54 Evaluations of the effectiveness of this response have been mixed, but they tend to indicate that officers are reasonably accurate in identifying drug-impaired drivers.55 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has published useful guidance on how to improve the investigation and prosecution of drug-impaired driving cases.56
9. Mandating drug treatment for all drug-impaired drivers. It is unlikely that all first-time drug-impaired drivers were apprehended the first time they drove while impaired. Furthermore, repeat offenders have demonstrated a persistent use of drugs and a willingness to drive while impaired; they have also demonstrated an unwillingness or inability to change either behavior. By and large, it is reasonable to conclude that most convicted drug-impaired drivers are drug users during periods when they are not driving. Drug treatment, including court-mandated treatment or compelled treatment by other means (e.g., drug courts or other drug diversion programs), is often effective at reducing (and sometimes eliminating) drug use and at managing the consequences associated with drug abuse.61 Treatment should be more intensive and last longer for repeat drug-impaired driving offenders (who are likely persistent drug users); even so, treatment has been effective at reducing subsequent collision risk for cocaine and alcohol users.62 Treatment is often less costly than many other criminal justice sanctions, including incarceration; therefore, it should be required for any convicted drug-impaired driver. Treatment, either concurrent with or in lieu of punishment, can be effective, but punishment without treatment is less likely to deter repeat drug-impaired driving.
10. Using electronic-monitoring devices to closely track repeat drug-impaired driving offenders. Offenders who are arrested or convicted more than once for drug-impaired driving merit closer monitoring and supervision by the criminal justice system than first-time offenders. Recent advances in electronic monitoring have suggested that this approach is a cost-effective method of community supervision both before and after convictions.63 Electronic monitors affixed to convicted drug-impaired drivers or their vehicles would allow police to track offenders continuously, to determine whether they are on foot or in a car, and to assess whether they are near such places as drug markets and drug houses. Together with driving restrictions, an electronic-monitoring program that includes a drug-use-monitoring device that can detect illicit substance use occurring within the offender’s home or while he or she is driving to or from work would create an effective technological method of preventing continued drug use and of reducing rates of recidivism among convicted drug-impaired drivers.
γ See Response Guide No. 6, Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns, for further information.
Repeatedly publicizing laws and legal sanctions may deter drug-impaired driving.
Photo Credit: Colorado Department of Transportation
12. Mandating drug-impaired driving education and prevention programs for high-risk drivers. Any new driver should be exposed to educational materials that focus attention on preventing drug-impaired driving. These types of programs should also target older drivers who are prescribed potentially impairing medications (which can be identified when the drivers renew licenses or, better yet, when they are prescribed); first-time and persistent substance abusers who may be at increased risk of offending; and other identified at-risk populations (e.g., those with drug-related arrests, nontraffic convictions and persistent traffic infractions at younger ages, as well as first-time drug-impaired drivers). These programs must move beyond merely providing factual information about the hazards associated with drug-impaired driving, an approach which may not be particularly effective.67
Prevention programs will be more effective if they emphasize increased swiftness and certainty of apprehension, nonlegal sanctions such as shame and loss of friends, concern for others, and awareness of personal-injury risks.68 Furthermore, programs that seek to correct inaccurate perceptions of the risks associated with various forms of drug-impaired driving, including marijuana-impaired driving and driving under the influence of marijuana and alcohol combined, should be developed and adopted.69
13. Educating and engaging physicians and pharmacists regarding prescription drug abuse and drug-impaired driving. Given that a substantial proportion of drug-impaired driving is linked to prescription drugs and prescription drug abuse, doctors and pharmacists (and their assistants) need to be fully informed of, educated about and engaged in responding to this problem. One potential program that focuses on physician support for designated drivers could be considered and adopted.70 A comparable program, supported by pharmaceutical companies and perhaps local transportation companies, could also be considered and adopted: designated drivers would be made available to those who are picking up or continuously using prescription drugs known to impair driving ability. Guides for developing such programs are available.71
14. Encouraging physicians and pharmacists to educate their patients about the link between the use of certain prescription drugs and impaired driving. Point-of-sale education programs are a viable method of reaching the general population and specific at-risk populations using prescription drugs, such as the elderly and the mentally impaired. These types of warning programs might have a meaningful impact because they are delivered proactively from a medical professional rather than reactively from a law enforcement officer or a court. Such programs should seek to identify drugs that are potentially impairing, to explain the consequences of using these substances before driving and to articulate the laws and punishments (including rate increases in automobile liability insurance) that apply to drug-impaired driving.72 Progressive programs might also include readily available transportation alternatives, home delivery of potentially impairing substances, clearly readable warning labels on containers, and other such methods for ensuring that substance users are effectively reached and are likely to understand the risks and consequences associated with driving while medicated.
15. Confining convicted drug-impaired drivers to their homes in the absence of close monitoring (electronic or otherwise). Home confinement, while possibly minimizing some subsequent offending, does not necessarily address the problem of substance abuse, and persistent drug users are unlikely to abstain in the absence of additional coercive or restrictive measures. Use of electronic monitoring as a method of enforcing home confinement is a preferred option, particularly if the offender understands the surveillance capability of the monitoring device and if swift, certain and severe sanctions are in place for noncompliance with, or other violations of, confinement conditions. Home confinement, combined with mandatory treatment and electronic monitoring, has been tested with drug offenders and has generated some positive results.73
16. Developing ignition interlocking devices and requiring convicted drug-impaired drivers to install them. Use of ignition interlocking devices, properly installed and maintained for a sufficient amount of time, has been effective in deterring some first-time and repeat drunk drivers from reoffending.74 Nevertheless, there have been some disadvantages to this approach. Some offenders do not own cars (and the impoundment of which may be part of their punishment - See No. 8 above); others may not install the devices even if ordered to do so; and ongoing monitoring may present substantial resource challenges for criminal justice systems. Those challenges would need to be considered if technological advances allow for drug testing by ignition interlocking devices in the future. At present, such devices are neither widely available nor validated as useful.
17. Developing and implementing devices that monitor drug use. Current technology allows for ongoing monitoring of the amount of alcohol in the blood. Similar technology may be developed for ongoing drug monitoring and testing of sweat, blood, urine, or saliva. At this point, such technology is in the early stages of development, although there are some preliminary indications that sweat-testing patches might prove useful in the future.75 If you are part of the criminal justice system in your jurisdiction, you should be aware of new scientific and technological developments regarding the technology of remote drug-monitoring devices. Such technology might also be used in conjunction with electronic-monitoring technology, which would allow police to track offenders and test them for drugs at all times and wherever they go.
18. Incarcerating drug-impaired drivers. Incarcerating convicted drug-impaired drivers, particularly repeat offenders and those prosecuted for deaths associated with crashes, obviously prevents offenders from driving during confinement and can deter them from further drug-impaired driving once released, but the deterrent impact on all drivers may be less than anticipated. Much of the deterrence literature suggests that swift and certain responses, rather than severe consequences alone, are likely to deter future offending, particularly if offenders know clearly how they are expected to behave in the future and the consequences for failing to do so. For offenders who are unresponsive to alternative sanctions, to substance abuse treatment (either compelled or voluntary), or to other responses, long-term incarceration is a viable, although expensive, strategy for ensuring increased public safety for some period of time.76
19. Substantially increasing fines for drug-impaired driving offenses. In many countries, increasing fines has historically had minimal effects on recidivism rates among drunk drivers or as a general deterrent to drunk driving. Often the fines are not paid, and many jurisdictions lack the resources to enforce payments unless the offender comes into contact with the criminal justice system in the future. Hence, there is little reason to believe that this approach would have a meaningful impact on drug-impaired drivers. However, Australia and Sweden have adopted fine systems that are closely linked to offenders’ income levels and to the seriousness of the offense, and within those systems, fines have been more effective in reducing recidivism rates.77 Nevertheless, the magnitude of the fine relative to the offender’s resources and the seriousness of the offense may not have been equitably balanced in many countries. Therefore, fine systems may need further exploration as one potential response to drug-impaired driving.
The table below summarizes the responses to drug-impaired driving, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they might work best, and some factors to consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances and that you can justify each response on the basis of reliable analyses. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem.
| # | Response | How It Works | Works Best If… | Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy | ||||
| 1 | Implementing per se (aka "zerotolerance") laws |
Increases the probability of successful prosecution of offenders; subjects more drug-impaired drivers to arrest and prosecution; communicates societal intolerance for drug-impaired driving |
....states or countries are interested in strong enforcement policies and are not as concerned about the inadequacies of current field-testing protocols |
Some drivers who are not actually impaired will still be punished, perhaps harshly, depending on the location and local laws; false positives may affect a small minority of drivers; legality of enforcement of these laws may be challenged; drugimpaired drivers using prescription or over-the-counter medications may not be included |
| 2 | Developing drugimpaired driver courts |
Holds offenders accountable for future substance use and offending; ensures closer monitoring of offenders in an effort to prevent repeat offending |
....offenders are at high risk for recidivism or have had more than one arrest for driving while impaired |
Establishing drugimpaired driver courts can require significant time and start-up resources, although these courts are often cost effective in the long run |
| 3 | Implementing or improving on-site, point-of-contact (field) drugtesting devices and protocols |
Improves prosecution success and ensures that drug testing occurs near the time and place of the offense, which improves validity of test results |
....the devices are user-friendly, cost effective, accurate, and reliable |
There are a number of technological devices available and still evolving, so police agencies will need to keep pace with ongoing innovations; the technology is still in development and may not accurately assess newer drugs or certain categories of drugs |
| 4 | Standardizing laband field-testing protocols |
Facilitates successful testing protocols that can withstand legal scrutiny; increases probability of conviction |
....agencies know how to handle testing samples and have the resources to handle them |
While some guidelines for standardizing such protocols are evolving, many jurisdictions operate independently; therefore, standardization among many jurisdictions remains challenging |
| 5 | Suspending, restricting, or revoking driving privileges |
Deters other potential offenders by threat of punishment; limits offending by controlling opportunities to drive a vehicle |
....police, prosecutors, and courts have the resources to adequately enforce violations |
Repeat offenders and those with persistent substance abuse problems are less likely to be deterred and will often continue to drive while impaired despite repeated administrative or legal restrictions; police, prosecution, and judicial resources for enforcement are often scarce |
| Enforcement Responses | ||||
| 6 | Implementing high-visibility enforcement, including sobriety checkpoints |
Increases risk of apprehension at high-risk times and places; raises public awareness of drugimpaired driving |
....police are able to identify offending patterns at high-risk times and places |
Legal challenges regarding sobriety checkpoints are likely to hinder implementation in some jurisdictions; can be resource intensive |
| 7 | Training police officers to be drug recognition experts |
Increases likelihood of successful prosecution and ensures that suspects are treated fairly but tested accurately |
....scale of drugimpaired driving is sufficiently large to justify training costs; prosecutors' evidentiary requirements are satisfied |
Legal challenges to admission of collected evidence will consume court and officer time; training costs can be substantial |
| Restricting Vehicle Access | ||||
| 8 | Impounding, immobilizing, or confiscating vehicles or vehicle license plates of drugimpaired drivers |
Prevents offenders from driving their own vehicle or increases likelihood of being stopped by police for driving without a license plate |
....clearly authorized by law |
Legal challenges may surface, as well as concerns about excessive punishment (e.g., for first offenders); costs associated with vehicle confiscation might be substantial |
| Reducing Drug Use | ||||
| 9 | Mandating drug treatment for all drug-impaired drivers |
Reduces likelihood of recidivism by reducing demand for illicit drugs |
....treatment programs are properly matched by drug type and offender's needs |
Treatment does not have to occur in lieu of punishment, but punishment without treatment may be less effective; treatment costs are substantial |
| 10 | Using electronicmonitoring devices to closely track repeat drugimpaired driving offenders |
Increases offenders' risk of drug detection and apprehension |
....employed in conjunction with driving restrictions and drug use monitoring |
Start-up costs may be expensive, but ongoing costs of electronic monitoring are generally more reasonable than incarceration costs; requires staff time to monitor offenders and apprehend them, if necessary |
| Education and Prevention Responses | ||||
| 11 | Conducting publicawareness campaigns directed at the general population and targeting highrisk populations |
Draws attention to dangers and consequences associated with drug-impaired driving |
....targeted to highrisk populations, including youths, college students, first-time offenders, drug users, the elderly, and in jurisdictions that have relaxed drug laws (including those permitting medical marijuana); message is deemed credible by intended audience |
Campaigns with multiple message points and sponsors may be more effective; costs may be substantial and benefits limited |
| 12 | Mandating drugimpaired driving education and prevention programs for high-risk drivers |
Focuses on education and prevention programs that reach at-risk populations or that may be required for certain at-risk populations; targets high-risk populations and ensures that those groups understand the risks and consequences |
....the programs emphasize the swiftness and certainty of apprehension, focus on nonlegal sanctions, correct misperceptions about the risks of drug-impaired driving, and are supported with frequent fieldtesting programs (e.g., sobriety checkpoints) and public-awareness campaigns |
Different programs will need to be developed for different risk groups such as repeat offenders, the elderly on prescriptions, and youths |
| 13 | Educating and engaging physicians and pharmacists regarding prescription drug abuse and drugimpaired driving |
Ensures that those who prescribe drugs are fully aware of the consequences of drug-impaired driving and are engaged in prevention efforts |
....physicians and pharmacists recognize their own liability concerns and work with engaged partners who might provide alternative transportation opportunities for prescription drug users |
Many designated driver programs already exist that focus on preventing drunk driving, and these programs might be readily adopted or expanded to address the consequences of prescription drug use while driving |
| 14 | Encouraging physicians and pharmacists to educate their patients about the link between the use of certain prescription drugs and impaired driving |
Ensures point-ofsale educational awareness and delivers the message outside of the criminal justice system, which may be more appropriate for some groups and more effective for others |
....the programs involve physicians and pharmacists and provide a variety of options for safe delivery and use of prescription and over-the-counter medications that can hinder driving ability |
Pharmaceutical companies will need to be active partners in acknowledging the risks associated with their medications and in educating users about those risks |
| Responses with Limited or Unknown Effectiveness | ||||
| 15 | Confining convicted drugimpaired drivers to their homes in the absence of close monitoring (electronic or otherwise) |
Deters offenders from driving through fear of sanctions |
....sanctions are certain and swift; drug treatment is also made available |
Home confinement restrictions are too easily violated absent vigilant monitoring |
| 16 | Developing ignition interlocking devices and requiring convicted drugimpaired drivers to install them |
Reduces likelihood of impaired driving by preventing such drivers from operating their own vehicle while drug impaired |
....the technology is reliable and valid (and available); monitoring is effective |
Technology of such devices is still in early development and testing stages; offender might have access to other vehicles |
| 17 | Developing and implementing devices that monitor drug use |
Deters offenders from using drugs illicitly out of fear of detection and punishment; facilitates compliance by giving offenders a valid argument against others who encourage drug use |
....technology is reliable and if monitoring is vigilant and results in swift and certain sanctions for violations |
Technology of such devices is still being developed and will not be widely available for some time; legal challenges will likely delay implementation, and different technologies will need to be developed for different substances |
| 18 | Incarcerating drugimpaired drivers |
Prevents offenders from driving while incarcerated; deters potential offenders through fear of punishment |
....punishment is also swift and certain; incarceration is accompanied by drug treatment |
This response may be the best available option for persistent offenders who are not responsive to other forms of intervention |
| 19 | Substantially increasing fines for drug-impaired driving offenses |
Intended to deter potential offenders through aversion to paying fines |
.....fines are proportional to income levels and to seriousness of offense and are consistently enforced |
Fines are often not paid, and follow-up enforcement is often lax |
[1] Lacey et al. (2009).
[2] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2010).
[3] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2010).
[4] O'Malley and Johnston (2007).
[5] Lacey et al. (2009).
[6] O'Kane, Tutt, and Bauer (2002).
[7] Bernhoft et al. (2005).
[8] Beasley, Beirness, and Porath-Waller (2011).
[9] Poulsen (2010).
[10] Elliott, Woolacott, and Braithwaite (2009).
[11] Officer (2009). But see Beasley, Beirness, and Porath-Waller (2011) for a somewhat different age distribution among Canadian offenders and victims.
[12] O'Malley and Johnston (2007).
[13] Begg, Langley, and Stephenson (2003).
[14] Karjalainen et al. (2011).
[15] Fergusson, Horwood, and Boden (2008).
[16]Lenne et al. (2001).
[17] Li et al. (2011).
[18] Bingham, Shope, and Zhu (2008); Brookoff et al. (1994); Hausken, Skurtveit, and Christophersen (2004); Ramaekers (2003).
[19] Jones, Shinar, and Walsh (2003).
[20]National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2012b).
[21] Ibid.
[22] Normand, Lempert, and O'Brien (1994).
[23] Kelly, Darke, and Ross (2004).
[24] Abramson and Haines (2012).
[25] Couper and Logan (2004).
[26] Lenne et al. (2001).
[27] Aitken, Kerger, and Crofts (2000).
[28] Kelly, Darke, and Ross (2004).
[29] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2009).
[30] Degenhardt et al. (2006).
[31] Cartwright and Asbridge (2011).
[32] Calafat et al. (2009).
[33] Cartwright and Asbridge (2011).
[34] White (2003).
[35] Kerrigan (2004).
[36] DuPont (2011).
[37] Grotenhermen et al. (2005).
[38] Lacey, Brainard, and Snitow (2010).
[39] Walsh Group (2002).
[40] Voas (2006).
[41] Loudenburg, Drube, and Leonardson (2010); Cissner (2009).
[42] Eibner et al. (2006).
[43] Caulkins and DuPont (2010).
[44]Compton (1986).
[45] Hersch, Crouch, and Cook (2000).
[46] Farrell, Kerrigan, and Logan (2007).
[47] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1996).
[48] Darke, Kelly, and Ross (2004).
[49] Ulmer, Shabanova, and Preusser (2001).
[50] Boorman and Owens (2009).
[51] Freeman et al. (2008).
[52] McKnight and Voas (2001).
[53] International Association of Chiefs of Police (n.d.).
[54] Talpins and Hayes (2004).
[55] Smith et al. (2002).
[56] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2004).
[57] DeYoung (1997).
[58] Leaf and Preusser (2011).
[59] Sweedler and Stewart (n.d.).
[60] Whittle (2000).
[61] Shaffer (2011).
[62] Macdonald et al. (2008).
[63] Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, and Rooney (2000).
[64] Mothers Against Drunk Driving (2005).
[65] Office of National Drug Control Policy (2011).
[66] Lacey et al. (2009).
[67] Davey et al. (2008).
[68] Watling et al. (2010).
[69] Fergusson and Horwood (2001).
[70] Hanson (2012).
[71] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2012a).
[72] Couper and Logan (2004).
[73] Jolin and Stipak (1992).
[74] Fulkerson (2003).
[75] Skopp et al. (1996).
[76] White and Gasperin (2006).
[77] Nichols and Ross (1990).
Abramson, Mark A., and Holly B. Haines. 2012. “Medical Provider Liability to Non- Patient Third Parties for Negligent Medical Care and Prescribing Practices.” Available at www.arbd.com/medical-provider-liability-to-non-patient-third-parties-for-negligent-medical-care-and-prescribing-p.
Aitken, Campbell, Michael Kerger, and Nick Crofts. 2000. “Drivers Who Use Illicit Drugs: Behaviour and Perceived Risks.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 7 (1): 39 - 50.
Beasley, Erin, Douglas Beirness, and Amy Porath-Waller. 2011. A Comparison of Drug- and Alcohol-Involved Motor Vehicle Driver Fatalities. Ottawa: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse.
Begg, Dorothy, John D. Langley, and Shaun Stephenson. 2003. “Identifying Factors That Predict Persistent Driving after Drinking, Unsafe Driving after Drinking, and Driving after Using Cannabis Among Young Adults.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (5): 669 - 675.
Bernhoft, Inger, Anni Steentoft, S. Johansen, N. Klitgaard, L. Larsen, and L. Hansen. 2005. “Drugs in Injured Drivers in Denmark.” Forensic Science International 150:181 - 189.
Bingham, C. Raymond, Jean Shope, and Jian Zhu. 2008. “Substance-Involved Driving: Predicting Driving after Using Alcohol, Marijuana, and Other Drugs.” Traffic Injury Prevention 9 (6): 515 - 526.
Bonta, James, Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, and Jennifer Rooney. 2000. “A Quasi- Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 27: 312 - 330.
Boorman, Martin, and Katherine Owens. 2009. “The Victorian Legislative Framework for the Random Testing Drivers at the Roadside for the Presence of Illicit Drugs: An Evaluation of the Characteristics of Drivers Detected from 2004 to 2006.” Traffic Injury Prevention 10 (1): 16 - 22.
Brookoff, Daniel, Charles Cook, Charles Williams, and Calvin Mann. 1994. “Testing Reckless Drivers for Cocaine and Marijuana.” New England Journal of Medicine 331 (8): 518 - 522.
Calafat, Amador, Daniel Adrover-Roig, Nicole Blay, Montserrat Juan, Mark Bellis, Karen Hughes, Fernando Mendes, and Anna Kokkevi. 2009. “Which Young People Accept a Lift from a Drunk or Drugged Driver?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4): 703 - 309.
Cartwright, Jennifer, and Mark Asbridge. 2011. “Passengers’ Decisions to Ride with a Driver Under the Influence of Either Alcohol or Cannabis.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 72 (1): 86 - 95.
Caulkins, Jonathan, and Robert DuPont. 2010. “Is 24/7 Sobriety a Good Goal for Repeat Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offenders?” Addiction 105:575 - 577.
Cissner, Amanda B. 2009. The Drug Court Model and the Persistent DWI: An Evaluation of the Erie and Niagara DWI/Drug Court. New York: Center for Court Innovation. Available at www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/dwi_court_evaluation.pdf.
Compton, Richard P. 1986. Field Evaluation of the Los Angeles Police Department Drug Detection Program. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Couper, Fiona, and Barry Logan. 2004. Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheets. Available at www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job185drugs/introduction.htm.
Darke, Shane, Erin Kelly, and Joanne Ross. 2004. “Drug Driving Among Injecting Drug Users in Sydney, Australia: Prevalence, Risk Factors and Risk Perceptions.” Addiction 99 (2): 197 - 185.
Davey, Jeremy, James Freeman, Gavan Palk, and Anita Lavelle. 2008. “The Self- Reported Impact of Legal and Non-Legal Sanctions on Drug Driving Behaviours in Queensland: A Study of General Motorists and Convicted Offenders.” In Proceedings: Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference 2008. Adelaide, South Australia: 416 - 425.
Degenhardt, Louisa, Paul Dillon, Cameron Duff, and Joanne Ross. 2006. “Driving, Drug Use Behaviour and Risk Perceptions of Nightclub Attendees in Victoria, Australia.” International Journal of Drug Policy 17 (1): 41 - 46.
DeYoung, David. 1997. An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment on Suspended, Revoked and Unlicensed Drivers in California. California Department of Motor Vehicles, Research and Development Branch.
DuPont, Robert. 2011. “Drugged Driving Research: A White Paper.” Draft prepared by the Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc., Drugged Driving Committee for the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Washington, D.C., March 31.
Eibner, Christine, Andrew Morral, Rosalie Pacula, and John Macdonald. 2006. “Is the Drug Court Model Exportable? The Cost-Effectiveness of a Driving-Under-the Influence Court.” Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 31 (1): 75 - 85.
Elliott, Simon, Helen Woolacott, and Robin Braithwaite. 2009. “The Prevalence of Drugs and Alcohol Found in Road Traffic Fatalities: A Comparative Study of Victims.” Science and Justice 49 (1): 19 - 23.
Farrell, Laurel, Sarah Kerrigan, and Barry Logan. 2007. “Recommendations for Toxicological Investigation of Drug-Impaired Driving.” Journal of Forensic Science 52 (5): 1214 - 1218.
Fergusson, David, and L. John Horwood. 2001. “Cannabis Use and Traffic Accidents in a Birth Cohort of Young Adults.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 33 (6): 703 - 711.
Fergusson, David, L. John Horwood, and Joseph Boden. 2008. “Is Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis Becoming a Greater Risk to Driver Safety than Drunk Driving? Findings from a Longitudinal Study.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (4): 1345 - 1350.
Freeman, James, Jeremy Davey, Gavan Palk, Anita Lavelle, and Bevan Rowland. 2008. “The Impact of New Oral Fluid Drug Driving Detection Methods in Queensland: Are Motorists Deterred?” In Proceedings High Risk Road Users - Motivating Behaviour Change: What Works and What Doesn’t Work? National Conference of the Australasian College of Road Safety and the Travelsafe Committee of the Queensland Parliament, Brisbane.
Fulkerson, Andrew. 2003. “Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as a Technological Response to DWI.” American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 29 (1): 219 - 235.
Grotenhermen, Franjo, Gero Leson, Gunter Berghaus, Olaf Drummer, Hans-Peter Kruger, Marie Longo, Herbert Moskowitz, Bud Perrine, Johannes Ramaekers, Alison Smiley, and Rob Tunbridge. 2005. Developing Science-Based Per Se Limits for Driving under the Influence of Cannabis (DUIC): Findings and Recommendations by an Expert Panel. Bethesda, Maryland: The Walsh Group.
Hanson, David J. 2012. Doctors for Designated Driving. Available at www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1093628753.html.
Hausken, Anne, Svetlana Skurtveit, and Asborg Christophersen. 2004. “Characteristics of Drivers Testing Positive for Heroin or Ecstasy in Norway.” Traffic Injury Prevention 5 (2):107 - 111.
Hersch, Rebekah, Dennis Crouch, and Royer Cook. 2000. Field Test of On-Site Drug Detection Devices. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
International Association of Chiefs of Police. n.d. The Drug Evaluation and Classification Program. Alexandria, Virginia: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Jolin, Annette, and Brian Stipak.1992. “Drug Treatment and Electronically Monitored Home Confinement: An Evaluation of a Community-Based Sentencing Option.” Crime and Delinquency 38 (2): 158 - 170.
Jones, Ralph K., David Shinar, and J. Michael Walsh. 2003. State of Knowledge of Drug- Impaired Driving (DOT HS 809 642). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Karjalainen, Karoliina, Tomi Lintonen, Antti Impinen, Pirjo Lillsunde, Pia Makela, Ossi Rahkonen, Jari Haukka, and Aini Ostamo. 2011. “Socio-economic Determinants of Drugged Driving: A Register-Based Study.” Addiction 106 (8): 1448 - 1459.
Kelly, Erin, Shane Darke, and Joanne Ross. 2004. “A Review of Drug Use and Driving: Epidemiology, Impairment, Risk Factors and Risk Perceptions.” Drug and Alcohol Review 23 (3): 319 - 344.
Kerrigan, Sarah 2004. Drug Toxicology for Prosecutors: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Lacey, John H., Katharine Brainard, and Samantha Snitow. 2010. Drug Per Se Laws: A Review of Their Use in States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Lacey, John H., Tara Kelley-Baker, Debra Furr-Holden, Robert Voas, Eduardo Romano, Anthony Ramirez, Katharine Brainard, Christine Moore, Pedro Torres, and Amy Berning. 2009. 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: Drug Results (DOT HS 811 249). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
Leaf, William, and David Preusser. 2011. Evaluation of Minnesota’s Vehicle Plate Impoundment Law for Impaired Drivers. Preusser Research Group.
Lenne, Michael, Craig Fry, Paul Dietze, and Greg Rumbold. 2001. “Attitudes and Experiences of People Who Use Cannabis and Drive: Implications for Drugs and Driving Legislation in Victoria, Australia.” Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 8 (4): 307 - 313.
Li, Mu-Chen, Joanne Brady, Charles DiMaggio, Arielle Lusardi, Keane Tzong, and Guohua Li. 2011. “Marijuana Use and Motor Vehicle Crashes.” Epidemiological Reviews 34 (1): 1 - 3.
Loudenburg, Roland, Gregg Drube, and Gary Leonardson. 2010. South Dakota 24/7 Sobriety Program Evaluation Findings Report. Salem, South Dakota: Mountain Plains Evaluation, LLC.
Macdonald, Scott, Robert Mann, Mary Chipman, Basia Pakula, Patricia Erickson, Andrew Hathaway, and Peter MacIntyre. 2008. “Driving Behavior Under the Influence of Cannabis or Cocaine.” Traffic Injury Prevention 9 (3): 190 - 194.
McKnight, A. James, and Robert Voas. 2001. Prevention of Alcohol-Related Road Crashes. In International Handbook of Alcohol Dependence and Problems, ed. N. Heather, T. Peters, and T. Stockwell. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving. 2005. “MADD Canada Launches New Drug-Impaired Driving Awareness Campaign Aimed at Youth and Post-Secondary Students.” Available at www.madd.ca/english/news/pr/p05aug29.htm.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1996. Administrative License Revocation, State Legislative Fact Sheet, October. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
---- 2004. Priorities and Strategies for Improving the Investigation, Use of Toxicology Results, and Prosecution of Drug-Impaired Driving Cases: Findings and Recommendations. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
----2009. “Testing Multiple Medication Usage and Driving Functioning.” Traffic Safety Facts: No. 357. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
---- 2010, November. Drug Involvement of Fatally Injured Drivers. Traffic Safety Facts Crash States (DOT HS 811 415). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
---- 2012a. How to Implement a Designated Driver Program. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
---- 2012b. Impaired Driving in the United States. Washington, D.C.: NHTSA.
Nichols, James L., and H. Laurence Ross. 1990. “The Effectiveness of Legal Sanctions in Dealing with Drunk Drivers.” Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 6 (2): 33 - 55.
Normand, Jacques, Richard O. Lempert, and Charles P. O’Brien. 2004. Under the Influence: Drugs and the American Workplace. Washington, D.C.: Committee on Drug Use in the Workplace, National Research Council/Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2011. Teen Drugged Driving: Parent, Coalition, and Community Group Activity Guide. Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
Officer, Jane. 2009. “Trends in Drug Use of Scottish Drivers Arrested Under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act - A 10 Year Review.” Science and Justice 49 (4): 237 - 241.
O’Kane, Carl, Douglas Tutt, and Lyndon Bauer. 2002. “Cannabis and Driving: A New Perspective.” Emergency Medicine 14 (3): 296 - 303.
O’Malley, Patrick, and Lloyd Johnston. 2007. “Drugs and Driving by American High School Seniors, 2001 - 2006.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 68 (6): 834 - 842.
Poulsen, Helen. 2010. Alcohol and Other Drug Use in New Zealand Drivers 2004 to 2009. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Police.
Ramaekers, Johannes. 2003. “Antidepressants and Driver Impairment: Empirical Evidence from a Standard On-the-Road Test.” Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 64 (1): 20 - 29.
Shaffer, Deborah. 2011. “Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Justice Quarterly 28 (3): 493 - 521.
Skopp, G., L. Potsch, H. Eser, and M. Moller. 1996. “Preliminary Practical Findings on Drug Monitoring by a Transcutaneous Collection Device.” Journal of Forensic Science 41 (6): 933 - 937.
Smith, John, Charles Hayes, Robert Yolton, Dale Rutledge, and Karl Citek. 2002. “Drug Recognition Expert Evaluations Made Using Limited Data.” Forensic Science International 130:167 - 173.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2010. Results from the 2009 Household Survey Drug Use and Health: Volume 1. Summary of National Findings. Office of Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-38A, HHS Publication No. SMA 10-4856Findings. Rockville, Maryland.
Sweedler, Barry, and Kathryn Stewart. n.d. Vehicle Sanctions: An Effective Means to Reduce Impaired Driving. National Transportation Safety Board, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Available at www.icadts.org/proceedings/2000/icadts2000-135.pdf.
Talpins, Stephen, and Chuck Hayes. 2004. The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria, Virginia: American Prosecutors Research Institute.
Ulmer, Robert G., Veronika Shabanova, and David Preusser. 2001. “Evaluation of Use or Lose Laws.” (DOT HS 809 285.) Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Voas, Robert. 2006. “Commentary on History of DWI Enforcement: What Does It Tell Us About DUID Enforcement?” Transportation Research Circular, No. e_C096. Woods Hole, Massachusetts: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Walsh Group. 2002. The Feasibility of Per Se Drugged Driving Legislation: Consensus Report. Bethesda, Maryland: The Walsh Group.
Watling, Christopher, Gavan Palk, James Freeman, and Jeremy Davey. 2010. “Applying Stafford and Warr’s Reconceptualization of Deterrence Theory to Drug Driving: Can It Predict Those Likely to Offend?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 42 (2): 452 - 458.
White, William. 2003. Management of the High-Risk DUI Offender. Springfield, Illinois: Institute for Legal, Administrative and Policy Studies, University of Illinois.
White, William, and David Gasperin. 2006. Management of the High-Risk Offender. Springfield, Illinois: Institute for Legal and Policy Studies, Center for State Policy and Leadership, University of Illinois.
Whittle, Shirley. 2000. “New York’s Property Clerk Forfeiture Act: Can They Do That?”Journal of Law and Policy 4:361 - 376.
Coming Soon ...
Important!
The quality and focus of these submissions vary considerably. With the exception of those submissions selected as winners or finalists, these documents are unedited and are reproduced in the condition in which they were submitted. They may nevertheless contain useful information or may report innovative projects.
You may order free bound copies in any of three ways:
Online: Department of Justice COPS Response Center
Email: askCopsRC@usdoj.gov
Phone: 800-421-6770 or 202-307-1480
Allow several days for delivery.
Send an e-mail with a link to this guide.
* required
Error sending email. Please review your enteries below.