U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

Drunk Driving 

by 

Michael S. Scott 

with 

Nina J. Emerson 

Louis B. Antonacci 

Joel B. Plant 

Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series 

No. 36 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 
Got a Problem? We’ve got answers! 

Log onto the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing website 

at www.popcenter.org for a wealth of information to help 

you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your 

community, including: 

Center for Problem-Oriented Policing 

www.PopCenter.org

• Web-enhanced versions of all currently available Guides 

• Interactive training exercises 

• Online access to research and police practices 

• Online problem analysis module. 

Designed for police and those who work with them to 

address community problems, www.popcenter.org is a great 

resource in problem-oriented policing. 

Supported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 
Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides Series 

Guide No. 36 

Drunk Driving

Michael S. Scott 

with 

Nina J. Emerson 

Louis B. Antonacci 

Joel B. Plant 

This project was supported by cooperative agreement 

#2003CKWX0087 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the 

official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. References to 

specific companies, products, or services should not be considered an 

endorsement of the product by the author or the U.S. Department 

of Justice. Rather, the references are illustrations to supplement 

discussion of the issues. 

www.cops.usdoj.gov 

ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 

February 2006 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series i 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series 

The Problem-Specific Guides summarize knowledge about 

how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime 

and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention 

and to improving the overall response to incidents, not 

to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. 

The guides are written for police—of whatever rank or 

assignment—who must address the specific problem the 

guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers 

who: 

• Understand basic problem-oriented policing principles 

and methods. The guides are not primers in problemoriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial 

decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to 

analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of a 

problem-oriented policing project. They are designed to help 

police decide how best to analyze and address a problem 

they have already identified. (A companion series of ProblemSolving Tools guides has been produced to aid in various 

aspects of problem analysis and assessment.) 

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the 

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend 

perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding 

to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps 

you design the right strategy, one that is most likely to 

work in your community. You should not blindly adopt the 

responses others have used; you must decide whether they 

are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one 

place may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place 

may not work everywhere. 
ii Drunk Driving Underage Drinking

• Are willing to consider new ways of doing police 

business. The guides describe responses that other police 

departments have used or that researchers have tested. 

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to 

your particular problem, they should help give a broader 

view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think 

you cannot implement some of these responses in your 

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when 

police have discovered a more effective response, they have 

succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving 

the response to the problem. 

• Understand the value and the limits of research 

knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful 

research is available to the police; for other problems, 

little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series 

summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate 

the need for more research on that particular problem. 

Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to 

all the questions you might have about the problem. The 

research may help get you started in designing your own 

responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This 

will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local 

problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, 

not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has 

every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so 

would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The 

references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn 

on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of 

research on the subject. 

• Are willing to work with others to find effective 

solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot 

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. 

They must frequently implement them in partnership with 
About the Problem-Specific Guides Series iii 

other responsible private and public entities including other

government agencies, non-governmental organizations, 

private businesses, public utilities, community groups, 

and individual citizens. An effective problem-solver must 

know how to forge genuine partnerships with others and 

be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these 

partnerships work. Each guide identifies particular entities 

in the community with whom police might work to improve

the overall response to that problem. Thorough analysis of

problems often reveals that entities other than the police are 

in a stronger position to address problems and that police 

ought to shift some greater responsibility to them to do so.

The COPS Office defines community policing as “a policing 

philosophy that promotes and supports organizational 

strategies to address the causes and reduce the fear of crime 

and social disorder through problem-solving tactics and 

police-community partnerships.” These guides emphasize 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships in the context 

of addressing specific public safety problems. For the 

most part, the organizational strategies that can facilitate 

problem-solving and police-community partnerships vary 

considerably and discussion of them is beyond the scope of 

these guides. 

These guides have drawn on research findings and police 

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, 

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. 

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from 

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere 

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming 

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be 

aware of research and successful practices beyond the 

borders of their own countries. 
iv Drunk Driving 

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide 

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency’s 

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency 

may have effectively addressed a problem using responses 

not considered in these guides and your experiences and 

knowledge could benefit others. This information will be 

used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback 

and share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to 

cops_pubs@usdoj.gov. 

For more information about problem-oriented policing, visit 

the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing online at www. 

popcenter.org. This website offers free online access to: 

• the Problem-Specific Guides series 

• the companion Response Guides and Problem-Solving Tools 

series 

• instructional information about problem-oriented policing 

and related topics 

• an interactive training exercise 

• online access to important police research and practices. 
Acknowledgments v 

Acknowledgments 

The Problem-Oriented Guides for Police are very much a 

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary 

author, other project team members, COPS Office staff 

and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide 

by proposing text, recommending research and offering 

suggestions on matters of format and style. 

The principal project team developing the guide series 

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, 

University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, 

professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John 

E. Eck, professor of criminal justice, University of 

Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, clinical assistant professor, 

University of Wisconsin Law School; Rana Sampson, 

police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm 

Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State 

University. 

Cynthia Pappas oversaw the project for the COPS Office. 

Stephen Lynch edited the guide. Research for the guides 

was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers 

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze. 

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members 

of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police 

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format 

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the 

line police officers, police executives and researchers who 

peer reviewed each guide. 

Contents vii 

Contents 

About the Problem-Specific Guides Series ................................. i

Acknowledgments ....................................................v

The Problem of Drunk Driving ........................................... 1

Related Problems ................................................. 1

Harm Caused by Drunk Driving ....................................... 2

Drunk Drivers..................................................... 2

Repeat Offenders.................................................. 4

Blood Alcohol Levels ............................................... 5

Drinking Locations ................................................. 5

Factors Contributing to Drunk Driving .................................. 6

Cultural and Economic Factors.................................... 6

Low Risk of Apprehension ....................................... 6

Overserving................................................... 8

Community Design ............................................. 9

Understanding Your Local Problem ....................................... 11

Stakeholders ..................................................... 11

Asking the Right Questions ......................................... 12

Incidents .................................................... 12

Victims ...................................................... 13

Offenders .................................................... 13

Locations/Times ............................................... 14

Current Responses to the Problem ................................ 14

Measuring Your Effectiveness........................................ 15

Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving ................................. 17

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy ................ 17

Specific Responses to Reduce Drunk Driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Legislation ................................................... 18

Enforcement .................................................. 21

Curtailing Driving Privileges...................................... 25
viii Drunk Driving 

Sanctioning Convicted Drunk Drivers............................... 28

Monitoring Drunk Drivers........................................ 30

Reducing Alcohol Consumption ................................... 31

Public Education ............................................... 33

Alternative Transportation ....................................... 35

Environmental Design........................................... 36

Responses With Limited Effectiveness................................. 37

Appendix: Summary of Responses to Drunk Driving .......................... 40

Endnotes ............................................................ 48

References .......................................................... 55

About the Authors .................................................... 75

Recommended Readings ............................................... 77

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police .................................. 81
1 

The Problem of Drunk Driving 

This guide begins by describing the problem of drunk 

driving§ and reviewing the factors that increase its risks. It 

then identifies a series of questions that can help analyze 

local drunk driving problems. Finally, it reviews responses 

to the problem of drunk driving and examines what is 

known about the effectiveness of these responses from 

research and police practice.§§ 

Simply put, drunk driving is a police concern because 

alcohol increases the risk that drivers will get in traffic 

crashes and kill or injure themselves or others. Alcohol 

impairment is the primary factor in traffic fatalities.1

 In 

the United States, where drunk driving is among the most 

common types of arrest made by police, the number of 

alcohol-related crash deaths§§§ is roughly the same as the 

number of homicides.2

 In addition, vehicle crashes are 

the leading cause of death in young people ages 15 to 20; 

many of these are alcohol-related.3 

Related Problems 

Drunk driving is one of a number of problems police 

confront that relate to impaired and dangerous driving. 

Others, which may require separate analysis and response, 

include: 

• driving under the influence of controlled substances§§§§ 

• underage drinking 

• street racing 

• speeding 

• aggressive driving 

• driving with a suspended or revoked license 

• hit-and-run crashes. 

The Problem of Drunk Driving

§ Various terms are used to describe 

the problem: “drunk driving,” 

“drunken driving,” “drink driving,” 

“driving under the influence” (DUI), 

“driving while intoxicated” (DWI), 

and “operating while intoxicated” 

(OWI) are among the most common. 

§§ The Century Council, a non-profit 

organization funded by U.S. alcohol 

distillers, publishes a sourcebook 

on combating drunk driving that 

also surveys relevant research and 

practice (Century Council 2003). The 

sourcebook can be accessed online 

at http://dwidata.org/.

§§§ It is important to bear in mind 

that alcohol-related crashes and 

crashes caused by drunk driving 

are not necessarily the same thing. 

Alcohol-related crashes are typically 

defined as those in which a driver 

or injured pedestrian has any 

measurable blood alcohol, many of 

which will fall below legal levels for 

drunk driving. 

§§§§ Much, but not all, of the 

information in this guide also 

pertains to the problem of driving 

under the influence of other 

controlled substances. 
2 Drunk Driving 

Harm Caused by Drunk Driving 

Drunk driving harms individuals and communities in 

many ways. 

• Drivers, passengers, and pedestrians are killed and injured. 

• Injured persons, their families, and their employers suffer 

financial losses when an injured person cannot work. 

• Vehicles are damaged and destroyed. 

• Other property, such as trees, utility poles, highway signs, 

and buildings, are damaged and destroyed. 

• Motor vehicle insurance rates rise. 

• Traffic flow is impeded by crashed vehicles. 

• Other drivers, fearing for their safety, may avoid driving at 

certain times. 

• Police resources are consumed enforcing drunk driving 

laws, thereby reducing the resources that are available for 

other public safety problems. 

• Police, fire, emergency medical, and hospital resources are 

consumed treating the victims of drunk driving crashes. 

• Court and jail resources are consumed prosecuting and 

incarcerating drunk drivers. 

Drunk Drivers 

One of the reasons drunk driving is of such concern 

to police is that it is an offense committed by a broad 

spectrum of the population, including those who are 

otherwise generally law-abiding. An estimated one-fifth 

to one-fourth of U.S. drivers admit to having driven after 

drinking at least once within the past year,4

 and about five 

percent estimate that they were legally impaired.5

 Drunk 
The Problem of Drunk Driving 3 

drivers come from all parts of the population spectrum, 

but are more likely to be male,6

 white or Hispanic,7 

between 25 and 44 years of age,8 unemployed or working 

class,9

 and unmarried.10 Drunk drivers are more likely 

to be heavy drinkers or to have drinking problems.11 

Drinking drivers under 21 years of age are about twice 

as likely as older drivers to be involved in fatal vehicle 

crashes.12 

Recent roadside surveys in the United States indicate that 

about three percent of drivers at any particular time are 

legally impaired. On weekend evenings the number of 

drunk drivers rises significantly: about eight percent of 

all drivers have blood alcohol concentrations greater than 

.05, and an additional nine percent of drivers have had at 

least one drink, meaning that on weekend evenings around 

17 percent of all drivers are operating their vehicles under 

the influence of at least some alcohol.13,§ Considering the 

high traffic volume during this period, it is clear that there 

are a lot of impaired drivers, especially compared to the 

limited law enforcement resources that are available to 

investigate suspected incidents of drunk driving. 

Although the general public and the police are perhaps 

most concerned about wholly innocent persons who are 

killed in alcohol-related crashes, it is in fact the drunk 

driver or his passenger who is most likely to be killed.14 

In recent years, significant reductions have been achieved 

in the number of young drivers killed in alcohol-related 

crashes, due largely to higher legal drinking ages, greater 

licensing restrictions on young drivers, and stricter 

enforcement of juvenile drunk driving laws.15,§§ 

§ Blood alcohol concentration is 

typically measured as a ratio of 

grams of alcohol per deciliter of 

blood or per 210 liters of breath. 

§§ For further information about 

how to develop a comprehensive 

approach to juvenile drunk 

driving, see Strategies for 

Success: Combating Juvenile DUI 

(National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Police Executive 

Research Forum, and U.S. Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, 1999). 
4 Drunk Driving 

Milford (Ohio) Community Fire Department 

Alcohol is a primary factor in a large number of 

fatal traffic accidents. In fact, the number of U.S. 

alcohol-related traffic deaths is roughly the same as 

the number of homicides.

Repeat Offenders 

By most estimates, although repeat drunk drivers 

comprise a relatively small proportion of the total 

population of drivers, they are disproportionately 

responsible for alcohol-related crashes and other 

problems associated with drunk driving.16 In fact, 

anywhere from one-third to three-fourths of drivers 

arrested for drunk driving have previously been charged 

with the offense.17 Those who drink and drive at least 

twice per month account for about 90 percent of all 

drunk driving trips.18 In the United States, one-third 

to one-half of those charged with drunk driving will 

be charged with it again in the future.19 However, even 

though repeat offenders are disproportionately involved 

in traffic crashes, most alcohol-related crashes are caused 

by drivers who have not previously been charged with 

drunk driving, so police must pay attention to both 

repeat and first-time offenders. 
5 

Blood Alcohol Levels 

Perception and motor skills are impaired by a blood 

alcohol concentration of as low as .05, which is typically 

two or three drinks for the average adult.20 Although 

drivers with blood alcohol concentrations of .15 and 

above are much more likely to be involved in serious or 

fatal traffic crashes,21,§ drivers with lower concentrations 

remain at a substantial risk for less serious crashes.22 

In addition, many drivers are impaired by alcohol in 

combination with other controlled substances. Low blood 

alcohol concentrations of obviously impaired drivers 

are often due to the presence of substances other than 

alcohol.23 

Drinking Locations 

A relatively high percentage of drunk drivers—perhaps 

one-third to one-half—consume their alcohol in a licensed 

establishment such as a bar or restaurant.24 Nearly onehalf of drivers with measurable levels of alcohol in 

their systems claim to have been drinking at the home 

of a friend, making social hosts an important factor in 

controlling drunk driving.25 In addition, a significant 

amount of drinking is done in vehicles themselves, 

especially by underage drivers who are not permitted in 

licensed establishments and by drivers with serious alcohol 

problems.26 

The Problem of Drunk Driving 

§ Although blood alcohol 

concentration affects individual 

drivers differently, on average, the 

risk of a driver getting in a serious 

vehicle crash roughly doubles when 

his blood alcohol concentration 

reaches .05, increases ten-fold at .08, 

twenty-fold at .10, and by a factor 

of hundreds at .15 and above (Ross, 

1992). 
6 Drunk Driving 

Factors Contributing to Drunk Driving 

Understanding the factors that contribute to drunk driving 

in your jurisdiction can help to frame local analysis, to 

identify effective remedial measures, to recognize key 

intervention points, and to select appropriate responses. 

Cultural and Economic Factors 

Drunk driving is very much the result of a cultural 

norm that emphasizes drinking alcohol as a form of 

entertainment and driving as both transportation and 

entertainment.27 Cultural drinking habits also shape drunk 

driving patterns. For example, drunk driving will be more 

concentrated on weekend nights in countries where such 

nights are considered prime time for heavy drinking. The 

extent of drunk driving also depends, obviously, on the 

availability of vehicles, so it is less likely in societies and 

communities where vehicles are prohibitively expensive. 

Low Risk of Apprehension 

Perhaps the single most significant factor in explaining 

why people drive while impaired is that they believe that 

there is little risk that they will be caught by police—and 

statistically, they are correct. By some estimates, the 

average drunk driver will drive while impaired between 

80 and 2000 times for every time he is apprehended, 

depending on the enforcement capacity of the local 

police.28 In fact, most drivers believe they are more likely 

to be involved in a crash than they are to be stopped by 

police.29 
The Problem of Drunk Driving 7 

Even the most committed police agencies and officers can 

stop or arrest only a very small percentage of the impaired 

drivers who are on the road at any one time—probably less 

than one percent. There are several reasons this is so: 

• At least in the United States, police must ordinarily 

reasonably suspect a driver is impaired or has committed 

some other traffic violation in order to stop and detain the 

driver, and some drunk drivers are able to operate a vehicle 

without displaying obvious indicators of intoxication such 

as weaving or crossing the center line of the road. 

• There are far fewer police officers on duty at any one time 

than the public commonly imagines. 

• There are many competing priorities for police attention, 

particularly at times when drunk driving is at its peak. 

• Processing a drunk driving arrest is time-consuming, 

typically taking two to four hours. 

The low probability that they will be stopped or arrested 

by the police on any particular trip undoubtedly leads many 

drivers to conclude that they can drink and drive without 

getting caught. 

Detecting drunk driving is not as easy as it might seem. 

Those without specialized training in detecting alcohol 

impairment—even medical professionals—are notoriously 

poor at estimating alcohol impairment. For police, 

detecting drunk driving typically requires two separate 

judgments: first, that a vehicle is being operated by an 

impaired driver; and second, that the driver is impaired by 

alcohol or another controlled substance. Each judgment 

is in turn subject to two kinds of errors: first, that the 

driver is impaired by alcohol when in fact he is not (false 

positive); and second, that the driver is not impaired by 

alcohol when in fact he is (false negative). 
8 Drunk Driving 

Compounding the difficulty of estimating impairment 

is the fact that some police officers try to arrest only 

those drivers who they believe have high blood alcohol 

concentrations, either because they prefer to prosecute 

only strong cases or because they do not want to be 

criticized for wasting scarce police resources on borderline 

cases. Consequently, some officers systematically fail to 

arrest impaired drivers because they are only searching for 

the most impaired. 

Drunk Busters of America 

Although police want to create the impression that 

all drunk drivers will be arrested, in reality only 

a small percentage of drunk drivers on the road 

at any particular time will in fact be stopped or 

arrested. 

Overserving 

Serving obviously intoxicated guests and patrons increases 

the risk of drunk driving, especially when drinking occurs 

at a location that most guests and patrons must drive to. 

Absent adequate enforcement of the laws that prohibit 

serving intoxicated patrons, overserving is notoriously 
The Problem of Drunk Driving 9 

common. The combination of the social pressure put on 

servers by patrons and the economic pressure to maximize 

profit can often overwhelm a server’s better judgment. 

Community Design 

Perhaps obviously, drunk driving is more common where 

licensed establishments are located far from where people 

live and work. Accordingly, drunk driving is likely to be 

more common, proportionate to the number of drinkers, 

in rural or suburban settings. Where people can easily 

walk or take public transportation in order to drink at a 

licensed establishment, drunk driving is proportionately 

less common.30 

Understanding Your Local Problem 11 

Understanding Your Local Problem 

The information above is only a generalized description 

of drunk driving. You must combine the basic facts with 

a more specific understanding of your local problem. 

Analyzing your local problem carefully will help you to 

design a more effective response strategy. 

Stakeholders 

In addition to criminal justice and alcohol regulatory 

agencies, the following organizations and entities have 

an interest in curtailing drunk driving and may be able to 

make a valuable contribution to efforts to alleviate the 

problem, both as sources of information on the extent of 

the problem and as partners in implementing solutions 

to it: 

• driver and vehicle licensing bureaus 

• insurance companies 

• motor vehicle clubs and associations 

• drunk driving victims groups 

• tavern and liquor sales industry groups 

• alcohol taxation authorities 

• personal injury attorneys 

• alcohol dependence assessment and treatment 

organizations 

• transportation businesses, such as taxi, limousine, and 

bus companies 

• traffic engineering departments 

• community planning organizations 

• schools 

• large employers 

• emergency medical providers, such as hospital workers 

and ambulance crews. 
12 Drunk Driving 

Asking the Right Questions 

The following are some critical questions you should 

ask in analyzing your local drunk driving problem. The 

answers to these and other questions will help you choose 

the most appropriate set of responses later. 

Incidents 

• How many alcohol-related crashes occur in your 

jurisdiction? In what percentage are one or more of the 

drivers legally intoxicated? 

• What proportion of all vehicle crashes in your 

jurisdiction is alcohol-related? 

• What other factors play a significant role in alcoholrelated crashes and injuries? Weather? Roadway design? 

Traffic volume? Seat belt use? 

• How many drunk driving trips do you estimate occur in 

your jurisdiction? On a typical weekend evening? On a 

typical weekday evening? 

• In what percentage of crashes does a suspected drunk 

driver leave the scene before police arrive? 

• What specific driving behaviors commonly cause 

alcohol-related crashes? Running stop signals? 

Speeding? Failing to yield the right-of-way? Following 

too closely? Swerving? 

• What is the typical blood alcohol concentration of atfault drivers in fatal crashes? Serious injury crashes? 

Minor injury crashes? Non-injury crashes? Arrests 

involving no crash? 

• How concerned is the general public about drunk 

driving? 

• What is the estimated total economic cost to the 

community for alcohol-related crashes (including, 

for example, property damage, lost wages, medical or 

funeral costs, and insurance pay-outs and premium 

increases)? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 13 

Victims 

• How many people are killed and injured in alcoholrelated crashes? 

• How many and what proportion of crash victims are 

at-fault drivers? Not-at-fault drivers? Passengers of 

at-fault drivers? Passengers of not-at-fault drivers? Atfault pedestrians? Not-at-fault pedestrians? 

• What is known about the demographic profile of 

persons injured in alcohol-related crashes in your 

jurisdiction? Age? Gender? Race or ethnicity? 

Employment status? Residence? 

• To what extent were persons injured in alcohol-related 

crashes also intoxicated? 

Offenders 

• What proportion of persons arrested for drunk driving 

in your jurisdiction have previously been charged with 

drunk driving?§ 

• What is the driving history of those arrested for drunk 

driving? Do persons arrested for drunk driving typically 

have worse driving histories than those not arrested for 

drunk driving? 

• Are persons arrested for drunk driving also involved in 

other criminal conduct? 

• What is known about the demographic profile of drunk 

drivers in your jurisdiction? Age? Gender? Race or 

ethnicity? Employment status? Residence? 

• How intoxicated are persons arrested for drunk driving? 

• What proportion of arrested drunk drivers were driving 

while their licenses were suspended or revoked? 

§ Note that if state driver histories 

are purged after a certain time 

period, the proportion of repeat 

offenders may be underestimated. 
14 Drunk Driving 

Locations/Times 

• Where do drunk drivers report having done their 

drinking? 

• Are certain establishments commonly reported as the 

source of a drunk driver’s last drink? 

• Are there certain areas within your jurisdiction where 

a high proportion of drunk driving or drunk driving 

arrests occur? If so, what explains this concentration? 

• When does most drunk driving occur? When do most 

alcohol-related crashes occur? Days of the week? Times 

of the day? Weeks of the year? 

Current Responses to the Problem 

• How many drunk driving arrests are made in your 

jurisdiction? Has this number changed in recent years? 

• What proportion of drunk driving arrests is reactive 

(i.e., made as a result of a vehicle crash or citizen 

complaint)? What proportion is proactive (officer 

initiated)? 

• How long does it typically take for an officer to process 

a drunk driving arrest? 

• Which police officers and units make the most drunk 

driving arrests? Do regular patrol officers place a high 

priority on drunk driving arrests? Does a special drunk 

driving enforcement unit exist? 

• In what proportion of drunk driving arrests does the 

offender refuse to take a blood alcohol test? 

• Do police officers have authority to demand blood 

alcohol tests of all drivers involved in serious or fatal 

crashes, or must they first have probable cause to 

believe that the driver is intoxicated? 

• What are the legal consequences for an offender who 

refuses to submit to a blood alcohol test? 
Understanding Your Local Problem 15 

• What are the typical sentences imposed on convicted 

drunk drivers? On first-time offenders? On repeat 

offenders? On those convicted of vehicular homicide? 

Do offenders typically comply with the terms of their 

sentences? Are there legal consequences for failing to 

comply with court orders? 

• What options are available to a police officer who stops 

a suspected drunk driver? Is arrest mandatory? Are 

alternatives to arrest authorized? Do officers resort 

to alternatives even if not officially authorized? If so, 

which ones are effective? Can an officer be exposed to 

civil liability in relation to drunk driving enforcement? 

Measuring Your Effectiveness 

Measurement will allow you to determine the degree 

to which your efforts have been successful and can 

also suggest how your responses can be modified to 

produce the intended results. Measuring the extent of 

your problem before you implement remedial responses 

will allow you to determine how serious the problem is; 

it will also give you a baseline against which to measure 

the effectiveness of the strategies that you choose to 

implement. All remedial measures should be implemented 

in both the target area and the surrounding area.§ 

The following are potentially useful measures of the 

effectiveness of responses to drunk driving: 

• reduced number of alcohol-related crashes 

• reduced proportion of all crashes that is alcohol-related 

• reduced number of injuries and fatalities caused by 

alcohol-related crashes 

§ For more detailed guidance on 

measuring effectiveness, see the 

companion guide to this series, 

Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police ProblemSolvers. 
16 Drunk Driving 

• reduced proportion of all crashes that result in injuries 

or fatalities 

• reduced severity of alcohol-related crash injuries 

• reduced damage to property from alcohol-related 

crashes. 

Reducing the number of drunk drivers on the roads is an 

important means of achieving the ultimate objective of 

reducing the harm caused by drunk driving. 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 17 

Responses to the Problem of 

Drunk Driving 

Analyzing your local drunk driving problem will give you 

a better understanding of the factors that contribute to it. 

Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a 

baseline for measuring effectiveness, you can consider possible 

responses to the problem. 

The following strategies provide a foundation for addressing 

local drunk driving problems. These strategies are drawn 

from a variety of studies and police reports; several may 

apply in your community. It is critical that you tailor your 

response to local circumstances and that you can justify 

each response based upon reliable analysis. In most cases, an 

effective strategy will involve implementing several different 

responses, because law enforcement alone is seldom effective 

in reducing or eliminating the problem. Do not limit yourself 

to considering what police can do; instead, carefully consider 

who else in your community shares responsibility for the 

problem and can help 

address it. 

General Considerations for an Effective Response 

Strategy 

Drinking and driving is greatly influenced by contemporary 

social attitudes towards the practice. And although laws and 

law enforcement can help change social attitudes, the reverse 

is much more likely: that is, that changes in social attitudes 

will lead to stricter laws and law enforcement. The general 

trend in social attitudes—at least in the United States, Canada, 

Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan—has 

been toward a lessened tolerance for drinking and driving. 
18 Drunk Driving 

There is a broad range of social policy changes that 

can significantly reduce drunk driving—tax policy, 

urban planning, roadway design, vehicle safety, alcohol 

§ See Ross (1992) for a comprehensive advertising, and emergency medical care, among others— 

review of social policy affecting drunk but for the most part police can only influence these 

driving. policies indirectly, through advocacy.§

 The responses 

§§ The legal limits are often even lower below are those that police have some capacity to 

for drivers of commercial vehicles. See, influence directly, at least at the local level. 

for example, the U.S. Code of Federal 

Regulations 49 CFR 382.201. As is often the case, a combination of responses is 

likely to prove more effective than any single response.31 

Legislatures and police agencies commonly implement 

a combination of responses that are effective in the 

aggregate, making it difficult or impossible to know which 

particular responses were effective and which were not.32 

Responses may work more or less well when applied to 

high-risk drunk drivers (those who are highly committed 

to driving while impaired) than when applied to occasional 

drunk drivers. 

Specific Responses to Reduce Drunk Driving 

Legislation 

1. Reducing the legal limit of per se violations. Most 

jurisdictions have enacted laws specifying that certain 

measurable levels of alcohol are per se violations of the 

law, irrespective of proof that the alcohol actually impaired 

the ability of the driver to operate the motor vehicle. 

1a. Reducing the legal limit of per se intoxication for 

adult drivers. Most countries and U.S. states set the 

level of per se intoxication at a BAC of .08.§§ Reducing 

the legal limit of intoxication and vigorous enforcement 

of drunk driving laws have been shown to reduce the 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 19 

number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities, especially 

when combined with administrative license suspensions 

(see Response 12 below).33 

1b. Reducing the legal limit of per se intoxication for 

repeat offenders. Some jurisdictions set lower per se 

intoxication levels for persons who have previously 

been convicted of drunk driving. There is some 

evidence that this is effective.34 

1c. Reducing the legal limit of per se violations for 

underage drivers. Many countries and U.S. states have 

enacted laws that prohibit underage drivers from having 

any measurable level of alcohol in their systems (socalled zero tolerance laws). Although zero tolerance 

laws are usually not strictly enforced, they do appear to 

have some deterrent effect on young drivers.35 

2. Requiring drivers to submit to blood alcohol testing 

if arrested for drunk driving. Nearly all jurisdictions 

require drivers to submit to blood alcohol testing when 

asked by police. In the United States, such requests can 

only be made if police have probable cause to believe that 

a driver is intoxicated. In Europe and Australia, however, 

such requests can be made without any prior evidence of 

intoxication. So-called random breath testing has proven 

to be effective in reducing drunk driving in Australia, 

not merely because it increases the risk of detection, but 

because it also reduces the social pressure to drink and 

drive by giving people a ready justification for not 

doing so.36 
20 Drunk Driving 

3. Raising the minimum legal drinking age. The legal 

drinking age in all U.S. states is now 21 years of age and 

there is evidence that these laws have helped reduce 

the number of underage drivers who are involved in 

alcohol-related crashes.37 It is likely that standardizing the 

minimum legal drinking age has also helped reduce the 

number of alcohol-related crashes that occur near the 

borders of states that formerly had different minimum 

drinking ages.38 

4. Prohibiting open alcohol containers in moving 

vehicles. Drinking while driving is especially risky because 

freshly imbibed alcohol is likely to cause maximum 

impairment to the driver. Prohibiting open containers in 

moving vehicles serves to restrict the availability of alcohol 

to drivers. There is some evidence that prohibiting open 

containers of alcohol in vehicles helps reduce the number 

of alcohol-related crashes.39 

5. Requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts. 

Although it has no particular effect on drunk driving itself, 

requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts helps 

reduce the severity of injuries in vehicle crashes.40 Drunk 

drivers and drunk passengers, however, are less likely than 

others to wear seat belts,41 and because drunk drivers are 

more likely to drive recklessly, they and their passengers 

are at higher risk of injury than non-drinking drivers and 

passengers. 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 21 

Enforcement 

The main goal of drunk driving enforcement should be to 

raise the perception among drinking drivers that they will 

be stopped and investigated for drunk driving. This can be 

achieved in two ways: first, by increasing the total number 

of drivers stopped by police; and second, by improved 

detection of alcohol impairment once a stop is made. 

There is some evidence that the latter method is more 

efficient and effective.42 Training police officers in drunk 

driving enforcement is therefore critical, but the value 

of the training depends upon whether the police agency 

supports drunk driving enforcement by its officers.43 

6.Increasing the number of police stops of suspected 

drunk drivers during high-risk periods. Because 

convincing drivers that they will get caught is perhaps the 

most important factor in deterring drunk driving, police 

should significantly increase the number of stops of 

suspected drunk drivers, particularly during times when 

the drunk driving crash risk is at its highest.44 This can be 

done by increasing the patrol time of officers looking for 

drunk drivers, streamlining the arrest process,§

 encouraging 

citizens to report drunk drivers,45 and increasing the 

emphasis that is placed on drunk driving interdiction and 

enforcement. 

§ The procedural requirements for 

processing a typical drunk driving 

arrest—and consequently, the overall 

time it takes police to make an 

arrest—have increased steadily over 

the years, serving as a disincentive to 

officers to make a formal arrest (see 

Simpson and Robertson, 2001). 
22 Drunk Driving 

§ Much of the police concern 

about civil liability for failing to 

arrest drunk drivers emanated from 

a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial 

Court opinion holding that police 

have a “special relationship” to 

motorists injured by a known drunk 

driver who police failed to take into 

custody (see Harvey and Caldwell, 

1984). 

Emphasizing enforcement may require police departments 

to authorize officers to use alternatives to arrest once they 

have determined that a driver has been drinking, lest scarce 

enforcement resources be exhausted by time-consuming 

arrests. A variety of alternatives exist, the effectiveness of 

which will depend on the particular circumstances of each 

incident. These alternatives include: 

• warning the driver 

• requiring a sober passenger to drive 

• allowing the driver to call a sober driver to pick him up 

• giving the driver a ride home or to some other safe place 

• following the driver home to ensure his safety 

• confiscating the keys to the vehicle 

• requiring the driver to take alternative transportation 

such as a taxi or bus.

The use of such alternatives can create a dilemma for 

police departments, because in some circumstances 

authorizing officers to not make drunk driving arrests 

when there are grounds to do so can expose the 

department to civil liability;§

 on the other hand, however, 

mandating that an arrest be made every time there are 

grounds to do so can discourage officers from stopping 

suspected drunk drivers out of a concern that processing 

the arrest will leave them unavailable for other duties, 

thereby undermining the goal of convincing drunk drivers 

that they are at risk of being stopped by police.46 Police 

should consult local legal counsel to craft policies that will 

enable officers to remove drunk drivers from the roads 

safely without resorting to arrest, while at the same time 

protecting officers and departments from potential civil 

liability. 

7. Conducting sobriety checkpoints. Sobriety checkpoints 

have been shown to reduce the incidence of drunk 

driving and alcohol-related crashes anywhere from 15 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 23 

to 25 percent.47 Their use is generally supported by the 

public.48 Sobriety checkpoints can be either selective or 

random: that is, all drivers on a particular roadway can 

be checked for sobriety or only those who meet certain § The U.S. Supreme Court upheld criteria. Some jurisdictions conduct them regularly; others the legality of sobriety checkpoints 

only during special enforcement periods.49 To be most in Michigan Department of State 

Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), but effective, checkpoints should be highly visible, so that some states prohibit them either by drivers perceive that their risk of being stopped and statute or state constitution. Police 

arrested has increased.50 Police should consult with counsel can conduct breath tests on any driver 

without cause in some countries, to determine the legality of and conditions under which including Australia. 

sobriety checkpoints may be conducted.§ 

In the United States, once a driver is stopped at a sobriety 

checkpoint, police must decide whether there are grounds 

to test him for alcohol impairment. By some estimates, 

police fail to detect signs of impairment in one-half of 

drivers with blood alcohol concentrations higher than the 

legal limit, so sobriety checkpoints are hardly foolproof.51 

Sobriety checkpoints are typically costly, although even 

regularly conducted operations that require only a few 

officers can be effective.52 Sobriety checkpoints are not 

necessarily the most efficient method of detecting and 

apprehending drunk drivers: regular or saturation police 

patrols in which drunk driving is a high priority often 

yield more arrests for the resources invested.53 However, 

sobriety checkpoints often produce the added benefit of 

apprehending drivers for violations other than just drunk 

driving. 

State of Colorado Department of Transportation 

Publicizing sobriety checkpoints can aid in convincing 

drivers that their risk of being stopped and arrested has 

increased. 
24 Drunk Driving 

§ See National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (1997) for 

detailed information about known 

cues for detecting drunk driving 

among truck and car drivers 

and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (1992) for 

information regarding motorcycle 

riders. 

§§ Police officers can also receive 

training through the Drug 

Evaluation and Classification 

Program, a protocol that enables 

officers to rule out certain medical 

factors and establish probable cause 

that drivers are under the influence 

of drugs other than alcohol 

(American Prosecutors Research 

Institute, 2004; National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, n.d.; 

International Association of Chiefs 

of Police, 2004). 

8. Training police officers to detect impaired drivers. 

Specialized training—including understanding the physical 

and verbal cues that indicate alcohol impairment§

—can 

help improve the ability of police officers to detect drunk 

drivers. The Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) 

appears to be the most accurate of the tools that have 

been developed to assist police in recognizing indications 

of alcohol impairment. Endorsed by the U.S. National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the SFST includes a 

horizontal gaze nystagmus test, a walk-and-turn test, and a 

one-leg stand test. A combination of tests is usually called 

for, because some drinkers, particularly serious alcoholics, 

can perform certain tasks even while profoundly impaired.§§ 

9. Using preliminary breath testing devices. Preliminary 

breath testing devices (PBT) are typically small and easy to 

operate. Some devices are passive sensors that can detect 

the presence of alcohol from within a few inches of a 

driver’s face. Passive devices ordinarily do not require an 

officer to meet any evidentiary standard over and above the 

one required to stop the vehicle in the first instance. Other 

devices, which require a driver to blow into a tube or other 

aperture, ordinarily do require that the officer first have 

reason to believe that the driver has been drinking. Both 

types of devices aid officers in the field in determining 

that there is probable cause to believe that a driver is 

alcohol-impaired, usually with the net effect of increasing 

the likelihood of arrest. There is some evidence that 

jurisdictions that use PBT have lower alcohol-related fatality 

rates than those that do not.54 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 25 

Random breath-testing—whereby police have the legal 

authority to stop and demand an alcohol breath test from 

any driver at any time—has been demonstrated to be 

particularly effective,55 but is impermissible in the United 

States as a constitutional matter. 

Breathe E-Z System, Inc. 

Police use of preliminary breath-testing devices 

such as the one pictured above increase the 

probability that a suspected drunk driver will be 

arrested. 

Curtailing Driving Privileges 

10. Suspending or revoking driver licenses 

administratively. Suspending or revoking the licenses 

of those convicted of drunk driving is one of the 

most effective methods for reducing alcohol-related 

crashes, but its effectiveness is limited by the capacity 

of police and others to enforce the conditions of 

suspension and revocation; moreover, this method is 

only effective, if at all, during the period of suspension 

or revocation.56 Administrative license suspensions— 

suspensions imposed by a licensing agency rather than 

by the courts—have proven more effective than judicial 

sanctions in some states, but not others.57 
26 Drunk Driving 

By some estimates, over three-fourths of drivers with 

suspended or revoked licenses continue to drive.58 In 

fact, many drivers with suspended or revoked licenses 

never even bother to apply for license reinstatement 

when they are eligible to do so. One of the unintended 

consequences of mandatory license suspension and 

revocation laws is that judicial and law enforcement 

resources are consumed dealing with those who continue 

to drive under suspension or revocation.59 

11. Imposing graduated licensing systems for young 

drivers. Several U.S. states have enacted so-called 

graduated licensing for young drivers. Typically, these 

systems grant young drivers limited privileges in their 

early driving years, such as restricting the number of 

passengers, the hours of operation, the use of cell 

phones while driving, or the types of vehicles that may 

be driven. These systems have been shown to have a 

positive effect on young drivers’ attitudes about drinking 

and driving, on their willingness to either drink and 

drive themselves or ride in vehicles with drinking drivers, 

and on reducing their involvement in fatal and injury 

crashes.60 

12. Impounding, immobilizing, or confiscating the 

vehicles of drunk drivers. Impounding the vehicles 

of drivers whose licenses have been suspended or 

revoked—for whatever reason, including drunk driving— 

is effective in reducing the likelihood that a driver will be 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 27 

charged with driving offenses, including drunk driving, 

or will be involved in a traffic crash.61 However, the 

mere threat of impoundment does not deter driving 

after suspension or revocation: a vehicle must actually be 

impounded to influence a driver’s behavior.62 In some 

jurisdictions, police return the vehicle to its owner if the 

offender satisfactorily completes an alcohol treatment 

program and reimburses the government for the costs 

associated with impoundment.63 Impoundment or 

forfeiture is often complicated by the fact that the vehicle 

used by a habitual drunk driver is owned by someone 

else or that other members of the drunk driver’s family 

might be inconvenienced by the loss of the vehicle. 

An alternative to impoundment is temporary 

immobilization by the use of a device that either prevents 

the motor from operating or locks the vehicle’s wheels. 

In some jurisdictions, police and prosecutors apply for 

judicial forfeiture of the vehicle, thereby permanently 

depriving the offender of its use. There is some 

evidence that impoundment and immobilization are as 

effective as forfeiture as well as less costly and timeconsuming for enforcement officials.64 

In spite of the availability and apparent effectiveness 

of these responses, they are often not employed by 

police and prosecutors.65 
28 Drunk Driving 

13.Confiscating license plates from convicted drunk 

drivers. Confiscating the license plates of convicted 

drunk drivers is an effective way to discourage them from 

further drunk driving because it raises the probability 

that they will be stopped by police.66 Confiscation is a 

judicial sanction in some U.S. states and an administrative 

one in others. There is some evidence that confiscation 

of license plates would be more effective if it were more 

widely used and more widely publicized.67 Alternatively, 

some jurisdictions require convicted drunk drivers to 

display specially-marked license plates on their vehicles.68 

Michael Scott 

In some states, special license plates are issued to convicted 

drunk drivers to discourage them from driving. 

Sanctioning Convicted Drunk Drivers 

There is an obvious case to be made for tailoring the 

sanctions imposed upon a convicted drunk driver to the 

likelihood that he will repeat the offense in the future. 

The challenge for the courts is to determine which 

offenders are likely to become repeat drunk drivers. 

Many courts require even first-time offenders to undergo 

alcohol assessments to determine whether they are social 

or problem drinkers. There is evidence that high blood 

alcohol concentration and a prior history of drunk 

driving or other traffic violations are significant predictors 

that an offender is likely to drink and drive again.69 In 

jurisdictions where they are in use, the data from alcohol 

ignition interlocks (see Response 14 below) can be useful 

in predicting who is likely to continue drinking and 

driving.70 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 29 

14. Requiring convicted drunk drivers to install electronic 

ignition locks on their vehicles. Electronic ignition locks 

(“interlocks”) have been shown to be effective in reducing 

the likelihood that a convicted drunk driver will be 

rearrested for drunk driving, at least while the ignition lock 

requirement remains in effect.71,§ However, the deterrent 

effect does not necessarily last once the requirement 

is lifted.72 Drivers ordered to use ignition locks are 

commonly charged for their installation and maintenance. 

Where interlocks are optional, any alternative sanction 

should be sufficiently harsh to motivate the offender to 

use the interlock.73 Where the device requires a driver to 

periodically retest in order to keep the engine running, an 

offender is less likely to enlist a sober person to start the 

vehicle. One of the advantages of interlocks over license 

revocation and vehicle confiscation is that it allows the 

offender and his family to continue to use the vehicle for 

legitimate purposes such as employment. Obviously, this 

response will not be effective where a convicted driver 

has access to other vehicles that are not equipped with 

interlocks. 

15. Requiring convicted drunk drivers to complete alcohol 

assessment, counseling, or treatment programs. There 

is some evidence that successful completion of mandatory 

alcohol assessment and treatment programs can reduce 

the likelihood that those with clinically diagnosed alcohol 

problems will be rearrested for drunk driving.74 Depending 

on the quality of the program, the incidence of repeat 

drunk driving and alcohol-related crashes can be reduced 

by as much as 5 to 10 percent.75 There is some hope that 

new pharmaceutical treatments for alcoholism may also 

help reduce drunk driving by hard-core drunk drivers; as 

of yet, however, such treatments have not been widely 

tested.76 

§ Ignition interlock devices require 

the driver to blow into a device 

that is connected to the vehicle’s 

ignition. If the driver’s blood alcohol 

concentration is above a set point, 

usually around .02, the vehicle will 

not start. 
30 Drunk Driving 

16. Confining convicted drunk drivers to their homes. 

In lieu of incarceration, some jurisdictions sentence 

convicted drunk drivers to home confinement. 

Compliance is typically monitored electronically. There is 

conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of home 

confinement.77 

Monitoring Drunk Drivers 

17. Closely monitoring high-risk drunk drivers. Closely 

monitoring drivers who have demonstrated that they are 

at high risk for driving while impaired has the potential to 

reduce the likelihood that they will be involved in alcoholrelated traffic crashes.78 Such monitoring can be done by 

police, corrections officials, or treatment providers. 

However, at least one intensive supervision program—a 

day treatment center that provided supervision, reporting, 

employment, counseling, education, and community 

resource referrals in a nonresidential facility—did 

not prove to be any more effective at reducing repeat 

offending than did a standard probation program.79 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 31 

Reducing Alcohol Consumption 

18. Reducing the consumption of alcohol. Reducing 

the total volume of alcohol consumed in a community 

can have a number of positive effects on public safety, 

including a reduction in drunk driving.§

 This is especially 

true when young drivers are denied alcohol.80,§§ Alcohol 

consumption can be reduced in a variety of ways, 

including: 

• increasing the price of alcohol by raising taxes or 

prohibiting discount sales81 

• restricting the number of bars and liquor stores§§§ 

• strict enforcement of the drinking age 

• regulating drink specials 

• raising public awareness through educational 

campaigns.

19. Suing alcohol beverage servers for serving 

intoxicated patrons who then drive and cause 

traffic injuries. Lawsuits brought against persons and 

establishments that serve alcohol to patrons who then 

drive while intoxicated and cause injury (so-called dram 

shop liability) can potentially discourage overserving 

patrons, thereby reducing drunk driving.82 However, 

the effectiveness of this response is limited because 

such suits are relatively rare, some jurisdictions protect 

licensed servers from such liability, and liability awards 

are often paid by insurance companies rather than by 

the offender directly.83 Liability insurers sometimes 

offer lower premiums to establishments that adopt 

responsible service practices, but some owners choose 

not to purchase liability insurance and either close their 

businesses or declare bankruptcy if they are sued.84 

§ See the POP Guides on Assaults 

in and Around Bars and Underage 

Drinking for further information 

about ways to reduce alcohol 

consumption. 

§§ See the POP Guide on Underage 

Drinking for further guidance on 

controlling minors’ access to alcohol. 

§§§ However, too few sales outlets 

may result in drinkers driving farther 

to get alcohol, thereby increasing the 

risk they will be involved in alcoholrelated crashes. 
32 Drunk Driving 

§ The states of Oregon and 

Wisconsin mandate such server 

training. 

Suits against private individuals are even more rare and 

difficult to win than suits against business owners.85 For a 

variety of reasons, both licensed servers and private hosts 

are reluctant to intervene in the drinking habits of their 

guests and patrons. 

20. Training alcohol beverage servers to recognize signs 

of impairment and enforcing laws prohibiting serving 

impaired patrons. Beverage server training programs have 

shown some positive effects in reducing alcohol-related 

traffic crashes in the jurisdictions where they have been 

adopted, but mandatory programs do not appear to be any 

more effective than do optional ones.86,§ Servers learn how 

to promote eating, to slow drinking, to call for alternative 

transportation, to stop serving, and to have drinkers wait 

before driving. Sufficiently strict enforcement of laws 

prohibiting serving intoxicated patrons is essential in 

motivating servers to heed the advice of these programs; 

otherwise, the pressure to continue serving intoxicated 

patrons can be too great for many servers to resist. One of 

the dilemmas of mandatory training is that in jurisdictions 

where successful completion of a training program confers 

immunity on a server, its net effect may be to shield 

servers from dram shop liability without substantially 

reducing the likelihood that intoxicated patrons will be 

served.87 On balance, however, responsible beverage 

service training appears to be a good idea.88 

21. Enforcing laws prohibiting serving minors and 

intoxicated persons. Enforcement of laws that are 

designed to prohibit serving minors and intoxicated 

persons in licensed establishments can help control a range 

of alcohol-related problems, including drunk driving.89 

Enforcement efforts should be targeted at establishments 

where a high proportion of drunk drivers were last 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 33 

drinking.90 Unfortunately, such enforcement is rare 

in most jurisdictions, especially as it relates to serving 

intoxicated persons. This may be because police and 

other enforcement agents feel that they lack the resources 

to devote to this activity, perceive that provable cases are 

difficult to make, or are reluctant to face resistance from 

the restaurant and tavern industry.91 

Public Education 

22. Discouraging drinking and driving through public 

education and awareness campaigns. It is difficult 

to change public attitudes and behaviors with respect to 

drinking and driving through public education campaigns, 

at least in the short-term. This is especially true among 

those at highest risk for drunk driving. Nonetheless, such 

programs can help build public support for addressing 

the problem and can help publicize changes in drunk 

driving laws.92 When they are used, public education 

and awareness campaigns to discourage drinking and 

driving should be tailored to particular segments of 

the population.93 Although young drivers are especially 

difficult to persuade, such campaigns are more likely to 

be effective if they exploit the influence of peers on the 

behavior of young drivers and emphasize the negative 

social consequences of drinking and driving rather than 

the health and legal risks.94 Programs that seek to correct 

young people’s misperceptions about how much their 

peers drink (so-called social norming) hold promise for 

reducing alcohol consumption.§

 Messages that focus on 

alternate forms of transportation, knowing when one has 

reached the point of intoxication,§§ helping out friends 

who are too drunk to drive, and the provisions and 

§ See the Underage Drinking POP 

Guide for further information on 

reducing young people’s alcohol 

consumption. 

§§ The Wichita, Kansas, Police 

Department (1998) offered free 

alcohol breath tests to drinking 

patrons at bars, clubs, concerts, and 

festivals as part of an effort to teach 

young drinkers to recognize when 

their intoxication was approaching 

the level at which it was unlawful for 

them to drive. 
34 Drunk Driving 

enforcement of new drunk driving laws are most likely 

to be effective.95 Teaching young people how to keep 

their peers from driving while intoxicated is effective,96 

as are school-based programs intended to discourage 

students from riding with drunk drivers.97 Young people 

are more willing to intervene effectively to prevent their 

peers from driving while intoxicated than are adults. The 

use of celebrities and appeals to fear and emotion are not 

particularly effective among young people.98 

University of Oklahoma Police Department 

While it is difficult to change public behaviors 

with respect to drinking and driving, publicity 

campaigns can help build support within the 

community for addressing the problem. 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 35 

Alternative Transportation 

23. Providing alternative transportation options to 

drinking drivers. Alternative transportation options 

include designated drivers and free taxi or limousine 

rides. There is evidence that drinking drivers, even 

heavy drinkers, will use alternative transportation if it 

is made readily available.99 There is also evidence that 

alternative transportation programs can significantly 

reduce the incidence of drunk driving and alcohol-related 

traffic crashes and injuries.100 Such programs are most 

successful when drivers are not forced to leave their 

vehicles at the drinking location: the best programs take 

the drinker to the drinking location and then return him 

to his home.§ 

Designated driving is now a well-established method 

for avoiding drunk driving, particularly among U.S. 

college students.101 However, there are any number of 

ways in which designated driving plans can go awry: the 

designated driver can change his mind and drink; the 

vehicle owner can change his mind and refuse to allow 

the sober person to drive; the drinkers in the group can 

drink more heavily than they would otherwise, which 

in turn can cause other problems.102 To date, there is 

insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of designated 

driver campaigns, either those directed at the general 

population or those targeting patrons of particular 

drinking establishments.103 However, designated driving 

appears to be a good idea that should continue to be 

promoted even if it is not as effective as was originally 

hoped. 

§ A pilot program in Wisconsin 

used business marketing principles 

to develop and promote taxi 

and limousine transportation to, 

from, and between bars in a rural 

community. Rather than trying to 

discourage drinking, the initiative 

acknowledged the local bar culture 

and sought to address patrons’ 

specific reasons for driving after 

drinking (Karsten and Rothschild, 

2003). An initiative in Wisconsin 

known as SafeRide that provides 

funding assistance to taverns to 

promote alternative transportation 

for patrons is partially funded 

by a surcharge on drunk driving 

convictions. An evaluation of the 

initiative concluded that it is costeffective (Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation, 2005). 
36 Drunk Driving 

Environmental Design 

24. Locating licensed establishments in areas that 

reduce the need for patrons to drive. Limiting 

the number of licensed establishments that are only 

accessible by car seemingly has the potential to reduce 

drunk driving; however, the effectiveness of this 

response has not been properly evaluated.104 Obviously, 

there are practical limits as well, especially in rural 

areas. There are, however, strong arguments in favor 

of distributing licensed establishments throughout a 

community and sufficiently close to residential areas so 

that at least some patrons can walk—or at least not drive 

far—to these establishments. 

25. Relaxing or staggering mandatory bar closing times. 

As may also be the case with other alcohol-related 

problems, relaxing or staggering mandatory closing times 

has the potential to lower the concentration of impaired 

drivers on the roads immediately after all the bars 

close. However, whether the net effect of this measure 

would be to increase overall alcohol consumption or to 

encourage drinkers to drive in search of a bar with a later 

closing time has not been studied. 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 37 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

26. Increasing the severity of penalties for drunk 

driving. By itself, increasing the severity of penalties 

for drunk driving does not appear to have a significant 

deterrent effect.105 This is so for several reasons: 

• Most drunk drivers do not believe they are likely to get 

caught on any particular trip, so they tend not to take 

the severity of the punishment into account. 

• If police officers believe that the potential punishment 

is unduly harsh, they may be less likely to arrest drunk 

drivers. So too with judges and jurors, who may be less 

likely to convict or impose stiff penalties. 

• Incarcerating more drunk drivers or incarcerating 

them for longer periods can so overburden existing jail 

resources that police are forced to curtail drunk driving 

enforcement.106 

27. Incarcerating convicted drunk drivers. Although 

the general public is likely to insist upon punishing 

drunk drivers—particularly repeat offenders—research 

suggests that conventional punishments such as fines 

and incarceration are among the least effective methods 

of controlling drunk driving.107 In addition, using jail 

resources for drunk drivers becomes more difficult to 

justify as those resources become scarce. The threat 

of incarceration, however, is often useful as leverage 

to compel convicted drunk drivers to accept alternate 

sanctions such as alcohol treatment, alcohol ignition 

interlocks, or vehicle forfeiture. 
38 Drunk Driving 

Even where jail time is required by law, many offenders 

do not actually spend the mandatory minimum time 

in jail. There are a variety of ways around mandatory 

minimums: for example, some offenders are credited 

with having served a full day in jail even if they are 

only incarcerated for a few hours. Moreover, mandatory 

minimum jail sentences raise the stakes of drunk driving 

convictions, which in turn leads to more vigorous legal 

defenses, delays in case processing, fewer guilty pleas, jail 

and court crowding, and so forth, all of which creates 

a counter-pressure to process drunk driving cases more 

quickly.108 

28. Fining convicted drunk drivers. Fining convicted 

drunk drivers has not shown any significant deterrent 

effect, either on the offender or the general public.109 

There is typically a high rate of failure to pay fines by 

convicted offenders. The primary purpose of fines is to 

offset the cost of enforcing drunk driving laws and of 

processing cases. 

29. Recovering costs from drunk drivers. Some 

jurisdictions allow the police to recover the costs of 

processing drunk driving arrests.110 Although the 

effectiveness of this response has not been adequately 

evaluated, there is little reason to believe that it has any 

greater deterrent effect than does the imposition of 

fines. It does have the advantage, however, of channeling 

revenue back to police, which should reinforce 

enforcement efforts. 

30. Requiring drunk drivers to listen to victim impact 

panels. Victim impact panels force convicted drunk 

drivers to listen to testimony—from the victims of drunk 

driving, their family members, the police, and medical 

professionals—regarding the impact that drunk driving 

has on individuals and society. In spite of the powerful 
Responses to the Problem of Drunk Driving 39 

and immediate emotional impact of these panels, their 

effectiveness seems to be short-lived: the evidence is that 

they only prevent offenders from being rearrested in the 

short term, usually within two years.111 Moreover, their 

impact appears to depend heavily upon the particular 

testimony of the panelists, something that is difficult to 

standardize.112 

31. Prohibiting drive-up alcohol sales. Although 

permitting drivers to purchase alcohol through driveup windows appears to be a bad idea for a number of 

reasons, there is inconclusive evidence that the practice 

has any significant effect on alcohol-related crashes.113 

This is probably because it is relatively easy to purchase 

alcohol—even if a driver has to step out of his vehicle 

to do so—as most convenience stores and many gas 

stations sell alcoholic beverages. 

32. Providing driver education courses in high schools. 

One unfortunate effect of providing driver education 

courses in high schools is that it encourages more young 

drivers to get their licenses, which in turn leads to more 

young drivers getting in alcohol-related crashes.114 This 

is not to say that driver education courses do not have 

positive effects, but rather that their effectiveness in 

reducing drunk driving appears to be limited. 
40 Drunk Driving 

Appendix: Summary of Responses to 

Drunk Driving 

The table below summarizes various responses to drunk 

driving, the mechanisms by which these responses are 

intended to work, the conditions under which they should 

work best, and factors that should be considered before a 

particular response is implemented. It is critical that you 

tailor responses to local circumstances and that you can 

justify each response based upon reliable analysis. In most 

cases, an effective strategy will involve several different 

responses, because law enforcement alone is seldom 

effective in reducing or solving the problem. 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

Legislation 

1. 18 Reducing the 

legal limit 

of per se 

violations 

Increases the 

probability 

of successful 

prosecution of 

drunk driving 

charges; subjects 

more dangerous 

drivers to legal 

sanctions; 

... reinforced by 

adequate enforcement 

at the lower limits 

3ROLFHRIÀFHUVPD\EH

unwilling to enforce if they 

do not understand the risk 

of driving at lower limits; 

enforcement at lower limits 

will increase the number of 

cases in the courts 

communicates 

societal 

intolerance for 

drinking and 

driving 
Appendix 41 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

2. 19 Requiring 

drivers to 

submit to 

blood alcohol 

testing when 

arrested for 

Increases both 

the certainty of 

arrest when a 

stop is made and 

the probability 

of successful 

... police have the 

authority to demand 

testing of drivers 

stopped at random 

In the United States, police 

must establish probable 

cause in order to demand 

testing 

drunk driving prosecution; 

provides drivers 

with social 

MXVWLÀFDWLRQIRU

not drinking 

3. 20 Raising the 

minimum legal 

drinking age 

Reduces the 

overall alcohol 

consumption of 

inexperienced, 

high-risk drivers 

... enforcement levels 

are high enough to 

convince underage 

drivers that they face 

a substantial risk of 

arrest; legislation 

and enforcement is 

Strict enforcement can 

substantially increase court 

caseloads 

supported by parents 

4. 20 Prohibiting 

open alcohol 

containers 

in moving 

vehicles 

Reduces the 

likelihood that 

a driver will 

consume alcohol 

while driving 

... adequately 

enforced; prohibition 

applies equally to 

drivers and passengers 

Provides police with 

DGGLWLRQDOMXVWLÀFDWLRQIRU

stopping suspected drunk 

drivers 

5. 20 Requiring 

drivers and 

passengers to 

wear seat belts 

Reduces the risk 

of serious injury 

when a crash 

occurs 

... adequately 

enforced 

Some jurisdictions may not 

authorize police stops solely 

on the basis of seat belt 

violations 

Enforcement 

6. 21 Increasing the 

number of 

police stops 

of suspected 

drunk drivers 

Increases the 

perceived risk 

of apprehension 

among drinking 

drivers 

«SROLFHRIÀFHUVKDYH

viable alternatives to 

custodial arrest for 

some stopped drivers; 

SROLFHRIÀFHUVKDYH

Competing priorities for 

police attention may limit 

the number of stops 

RIÀFHUVFDQUHDOLVWLFDOO\

PDNHSROLFHRIÀFHUVPXVW

during highrisk times of 

day 

VXIÀFLHQWUHVRXUFHVWR

make a high number 

of stops 

believe that their reasonable 

exercise of discretion in 

employing alternatives to 

arrest will be supported 
42 Drunk Driving 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

7. 22 Conducting 

sobriety 

checkpoints 

Increases the 

perceived risk 

of apprehension 

among drinking 

drivers 

... the public 

supports the practice; 

RIÀFHUVDUHSURSHUO\

trained to detect 

impaired drivers 

Legal requirements must 

be met; checkpoints 

should be highly visible 

to maximize their general 

deterrent effect; because 

they can be costly to 

conduct, checkpoints 

are not necessarily the

PRVWHIÀFLHQWPHWKRGRI

stopping drunk drivers 

8. 24 Training police 

RIÀFHUVWR

detect impaired 

drivers 

Increases the 

probability of 

arrest once a 

stop is made; 

increases the 

«SROLFHRIÀFHUV

believe that 

enforcement is valued 

by the department 

2IÀFHUVVKRXOGDOVREH

trained to detect impairment 

from substances other than 

alcohol 

likelihood of 

successful 

prosecution 

9. 24 Using 

preliminary 

breath testing 

devices 

Increases the 

probability of 

arrest once a 

stop is made; 

increases the 

likelihood of 

successful 

prosecution 

«RIÀFHUVDUH

properly trained 

in their use; can 

be administered 

to drivers stopped 

at random (where 

legal) or at sobriety 

checkpoints 

Legal requirements for 

demanding tests must be 

met; costs to purchase and 

maintain devices 

Curtailing Driving Privileges 

10. 25 Administrative 

suspension and 

revocation of 

driver licenses 

Reduces the 

likelihood that 

convicted drunk 

drivers will drive 

while intoxicated 

during periods 

of suspension; 

deters drivers 

through 

threatened 

loss of driving 

privileges 

... jurisdiction has 

adequate resources 

to process cases; 

suspensions are 

routinely and 

promptly imposed 

by an administrative 

agency rather than by 

the courts 

Most suspended or revoked 

drivers continue to drive; 

high volume of cases arising 

from operators who drive 

while suspended or revoked 

can drain criminal justice 

resources; the large number 

of suspended or revoked 

drivers can increase the 

volume of police pursuits 

if drivers attempt to avoid 

apprehension 
Appendix 43 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

11. 26 Imposing 

graduated 

licensing 

systems for 

young drivers 

Reduces 

opportunities for 

inexperienced 

drivers to drive 

under high-risk 

conditions 

... legislation and 

enforcement is 

supported by parents 

Creates hardships for young 

drivers and their parents 

12. 26 Impounding, 

immobilizing,

RUFRQÀVFDWLQJ

the vehicles of 

drunk drivers 

Reduces 

opportunities 

for convicted 

drunk drivers 

to continue 

... vehicle is 

actually impounded 

or immobilized; 

threats alone are an 

LQVXIÀFLHQWGHWHUUHQW

High costs can be incurred 

impounding, immobilizing, 

and storing vehicles; third 

parties who depend on 

use of the vehicle are also 

driving; deters 

drivers through 

threatened 

penalized 

loss of driving 

privileges 

13. 28 &RQÀVFDWLQJ

license plates 

from convicted 

drunk drivers 

Increases the 

probability that a 

convicted driver 

will be stopped 

by police 

... more widely used 

and publicized 

Specially-marked license 

plates indicating the vehicle 

is likely being operated by a 

convicted drunk driver is a 

similar alternative 

Sanctioning Convicted Drunk Drivers 

14. 29 Requiring 

convicted 

drunk drivers 

to install 

electronic 

ignition locks 

on their 

vehicles 

Prevents 

intoxicated 

drivers from 

operating their 

vehicles 

... alternative 

sanctions are severe 

enough to persuade 

drivers to use the 

devices; drivers must 

periodically retest 

to keep the vehicle 

running; drivers 

cannot readily use 

other vehicles 

Deterrent effect not likely 

to last beyond period 

when device is installed; 

minimizes inconvenience to 

others who are dependent 

upon the vehicle 
44 Drunk Driving 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

15. 29 Requiring 

convicted 

drunk drivers 

to complete 

alcohol 

assessment, 

counseling, 

or treatment 

programs 

Reduces alcohol 

consumption of 

those convicted 

of drunk driving 

... the treatment 

program is of 

high quality and 

demonstrated 

effectiveness 

Not all drunk drivers 

EHQHÀWIURPWKHVH

programs; program costs 

can be high 

16. 30 &RQÀQLQJ

convicted 

drivers to their 

homes 

Reduces 

opportunities 

for offenders 

to continue 

driving; deters 

drivers through 

threatened 

loss of driving 

privileges 

... monitoring is 

effective 

Electronic monitoring is

PRUHHIÀFLHQWWKDQSHUVRQDO

monitoring 

Monitoring Drunk Drivers 

17. 30 Closely 

monitoring 

high-risk drunk 

drivers 

Reduces 

opportunities 

for convicted 

drunk drivers to 

continue driving 

... highest risk drivers 

are selected for 

intensive monitoring 

Labor intensive 

Reducing Alcohol Consumption 

18. 31 Reducing the 

consumption 

of alcohol 

Reduces 

intoxication 

levels of drivers, 

thereby reducing 

the risk of 

vehicle crashes 

... reductions in 

consumption levels 

are substantial 

Public support for measures 

to reduce consumption

PD\EHGLIÀFXOWWRREWDLQLQ

some jurisdictions 
Appendix 45 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

19. 31 Suing alcohol 

beverage 

servers for 

serving 

intoxicated 

patrons who 

then drive and 

FDXVHWUDIÀF

injuries 

Discourages 

serving 

intoxicated 

patrons, thereby 

reducing alcohol 

consumption 

... plaintiffs prevail 

often enough so that 

alcohol beverage 

servers perceive their 

potential liability to

EHVLJQLÀFDQWOLDELOLW\

results in actual costs 

to alcohol beverage 

servers 

Some insurance companies 

cover full costs of liability; 

some alcohol beverage 

servers avoid liability by 

becoming judgment proof; 

social norms often work 

against intervening in the 

drinking habits of others 

20. 32 Training 

alcohol 

Reduces 

the alcohol 

... reinforced by the 

owners of licensed 

Mandatory programs have 

not been shown to be more 

beverage 

servers to 

recognize signs 

of impairment 

and enforcing 

laws 

consumption of 

potential drunk 

drivers 

establishments; 

reinforced by 

adequate enforcement 

of alcohol service 

laws 

effective than voluntary 

ones; compliance with 

training regulations may 

provide servers with a 

defense against liability 

prohibiting 

serving 

impaired 

patrons 

21. 32 Enforcing laws 

prohibiting 

serving minors 

and intoxicated 

persons 

Reduces alcohol 

consumption of 

potential drunk 

drivers 

... enforcement is 

VXIÀFLHQWWRFUHDWHD

VLJQLÀFDQWSHUFHSWLRQ

of risk among servers; 

known problem 

establishments are 

Enforcement resources 

and priorities are often 

inadequate; enforcement 

efforts are often resisted by 

alcohol service industry 

targeted 

Public Education 

22. 33 Discouraging 

drinking 

and driving 

through public 

education and 

awareness 

campaigns 

Discourages 

drinkers from 

driving and 

drivers from 

drinking; builds 

public support 

for a wide range 

of drunk driving 

... education and 

awareness messages 

are carefully targeted 

to particular audiences 

Can be costly to develop 

DQGUXQGLIÀFXOWWRPHDVXUH

effect on behavior 

countermeasures 
46 Drunk Driving 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

Alternative Transportation 

23. 35 Providing 

alternative 

transportation 

options to 

drinking drivers 

Reduces need 

for drinkers to 

drive 

... transportation is 

provided to, from, 

and among drinking 

establishments so 

that drinkers are 

not compelled to 

leave their vehicles 

at a drinking 

establishment; costs 

to drinkers are 

reasonable 

Transportation services can 

be costly to operate 

Environmental Design 

24. 36 Locating 

licensed 

establishments 

in areas that 

reduce the 

need for 

patrons to 

drive 

Reduces the 

need for 

drinkers to drive 

... the public 

understands 

and supports 

locating drinking 

establishments in 

certain areas 

Less viable in rural areas 

where driving is almost 

unavoidable; the public 

may resist locating bars 

and taverns near residential 

areas 

25. 36 Relaxing or 

staggering 

mandatory bar 

closing times 

Reduces the 

concentration 

of drunk 

drivers on the 

road; reduces 

excessive alcohol 

consumption at 

closing time 

... bars and taverns 

are located where 

drinkers do not need 

to drive to reach them 

Net effects not 

demonstrated conclusively 
Appendix 47 

Response 

No. 

Page 

No. 

Response How It Works Works Best If... Considerations 

Responses With Limited Effectiveness 

26. 37 Increasing the 

severity of 

penalties for 

drunk driving 

Typically, certainty of 

apprehension is too low for 

severity of penalties to have 

much deterrent effect; if 

penalties exceed what police 

deem fair, they may be less 

willing to enforce drunk 

driving laws; raising the 

stakes of conviction often 

slows down the adjudication 

process, thereby 

undermining deterrence 

27. 37 Incarcerating 

convicted 

drunk drivers 

Consumes scarce jail 

resources; threat of 

incarceration can be 

effective incentive for 

alternative sanctions 

28. 38 Fining 

convicted 

drunk drivers 

High rates of failure to pay 

ÀQHVDUHW\SLFDO

29. 38 Recovering law 

enforcement 

costs from 

convicted 

drunk drivers 

Effects not demonstrated 

conclusively; high rates of 

failure to pay are typical 

30. 38 Requiring 

drunk drivers 

to listen to 

victim impact 

panels 

Deterrent effect is shortlived; effectiveness heavily 

dependent upon skills of 

VSHDNHUVZKLFKLVGLIÀFXOW

to standardize 

31. 39 Prohibiting 

drive-up 

alcohol sales 

Typically, alcohol can easily 

be purchased elsewhere 

32. 39 Providing 

driver 

education 

courses in high 

schools 

Encourages more young 

people to get their licenses, 

which increases the risk of 

crashes 
48 Drunk Driving 

Endnotes 

1 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(2002).

2 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 

3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Police 

Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). 

4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(2003b); Ross (1992); Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 

5 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(1999a).

6 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); Caetano and 

Clark (2000); Liu et al. (1997); National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (2003b); Cavaiola and 

Wuth (2002). 

7 Caetano and Clark (2000).

8 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); Liu et al. 

(1997); National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (2003b); Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 

9 Ross, McCleary, and LaFree (1990); Wieczorek and 

Coyle (1998); Cavaiola and Wuth (2002). 

10 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997). 

11 Caetano and Clark (2000); Beirness, Mayhew, and 

Simpson (1997); Liu et al. (1997).

12 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Police 

Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). 

13 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002); McKnight and Voas (2001); 

Voas et al. (1998). 

14 Ross (1992); Goldstein and Susmilch (1982). 

15 Centers for Disease Control (2002); Eisenberg (2003); 

Evans, Nevile, and Graham (1991); Helander (2002); 

McCartt et al. (2001); Presseur, Solé, and Stewart 

(1999); Ross (1992); Saffer and Grossman (1987); 

Shults et al. (2001); Toomey, Rosenfeld, and Wagenaar 

(1996); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2003); Cavaiola and 

Wuth (2002). 
Endnotes 49 

16 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); Jones and 

Lacey (2000); McKnight and Voas (2001); Cavaiola and 

Wuth (2002). 

17 Associated Press (2004a), citing a study by the 

Wisconsin Bureau of Transportation Safety; Beirness, 

Mayhew, and Simpson (1997). 

18 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997). 

19 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

20 Moskowitz and Fiorentino (2000); Ross (1992); Zador, 

Krawchuk and Voas (2000). 

21 Beirness, Mayhew, and Simpson (1997); McKnight and 

Voas (2001); Ross (1992). 

22 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002); Zador, Krawchuk and 

Voas (2000). 

23 Marowitz (1996). 

24 McKnight and Voas (2001); Ross (1992). 

25 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

26 Snow and Wells-Parker (2001). 

27 Ross (1992). 

28 Associated Press (2004a), citing a study by the 

Wisconsin Bureau of Transportation Safety; Liu et 

al. (1997); McKnight and Voas (2001); Ross (1992); 

Ross, McCleary, and LaFree (1990). See also Zador, 

Krawchuk, and Moore (2000). 

29 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(1999a).

30 Ross (1992). 

31 Voas, Holder, and Gruenewald (1997); Voas, Tippetts, 

and Fell (2000); Dieringer Research Group, Inc. 

(2001); Deshapriya and Iwase (1996). 

32 Lacey and Jones (2000). 
50 Drunk Driving 

33 Apsler, Char, Harding, and Klein (1999); Dee (2001); 

Eisenberg (2003); Fell and Voas (2003); Helander 

(2002); Mann et al. (2001); Rogers (1995, 1997); Shults 

et al. (2001); U.S. General Accounting Office (1999); 

Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2000); Voas, Tippetts, and 

Taylor (2002); Deshapriya and Iwase (1996). But see 

Foss, Stewart, and Reinfurt (2001) and Imrie (2004) 

for contrary results. 

34 Helander (2002).

35 McKnight and Voas (2001); Presseur, Solé, and Stewart 

(1999); Shults et al. (2001); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell 

(2003); Blackman et al. (2001); Wagenaar, O’Malley, 

and LaFond (2001); Zwerling and Jones (1999); 

Blomberg (1992); Zwerling (1999). 

36 Homel (1988).

37 Wagenaar and Toomey (2002); Evans, Nevile, and 

Graham (1991); Helander (2002); Ross (1992); Shults 

et al. (2001); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2003). 

38 Ross (1992). 

39 Snow and Wells-Parker (2001); Stuster, Burns, and 

Fiorentino (2002); Ross (1992); Whetten-Goldstein et 

al. (2000).

40 Stewart and Sweedler (1997); Evans, Nevile, and 

Graham (1991); Helander (2002).

41 Ross (1992). 

42 Löbmann (2002).

43 Mastrofski and Ritti (1996).

44 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982); Jones, Lacey, and 

Wiliszowski (1998); Ross and Voas (1990). See also 

Grosvenor, Toomey, and Wagenaar (1999). 

45 Lancashire Constabulary (1999). 

46 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982). 

47 Elder et al. (2002); Evans, Nevile, and Graham 

(1991); Helander (2002); Lacey, Jones, and Smith 

(1999); McKnight and Voas (2001); Miller, Galbraith, 

and Lawrence (1998); Ross (1992); Shults et al. (2001); 

Stewart and Sweedler (1997). 
Appendix Endnotes 51 

48 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(1999a, 2003b).

49 See Fell et al. (2003) for a discussion of the benefits 

and drawbacks of sobriety checkpoints. 

50 Ross (1992). 

51 McKnight and Voas (2001); Elder et al. (2002). 

52 See, for example, Bowman and Stemler (2005). 

53 See also Greene (2003).

54 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

55 Stewart and Sweedler (1997); Homel (1998); Wilson 

and Mann (1990).

56 Helander (2002); McKnight and Voas (2001); Rogers 

(1995); Ross (1992); Stewart and Sweedler (1997); 

Ulmer, Shabanova, and Presseur (2001); Voas and 

DeYoung (2002); Voas, Tippetts, and Fell (2000); 

Whetten-Goldstein et al. (2000); National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (1999b). 

57 McArthur and Kraus (1999); McKnight and Voas 

(2001).

58 Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); McKnight 

and Voas (2001); National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (2003a); Peck and Voas (2002); 

Tippetts and Voas (1998); McCartt, Geary, and Nissen 

(2004).

59 Scopatz et al. (2003); McCartt, Geary, and Nissen 

(2004).

60 McCartt et al. (2001); Presseur, Solé, and Stewart 

(1999); Ross (1992); Ulmer et al. (2000). 

61 DeYoung (1999); Helander (2002); Marques, Voas, 

and Hodgins (1998); McKnight and Voas (2001); Safir, 

Grasso, and Messner (2000); Voas and DeYoung 

(2002): Voas, Tippetts, and Taylor (1997); National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (1999b). 

62 DeYoung (2000). 

63 Safir, Grasso, and Messner (2000). 

64 Peck and Voas (2002). 
52 Drunk Driving 

65 Peck and Voas (2002). 

66 Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); McKnight and 

Voas (2001). 

67 Ross, Simon, and Cleary (1996). 

68 Associated Press (2004b); Marques, Voas, and Hodgins 

(1998); Voas, Tippetts, and Lange (1997). 

69 Marowitz (1996). 

70 Marques, Tippetts, and Voas (2001, 2003). 

71 Beck, Rauch, Baker, and Williams (1999); Helander 

(2002); Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); McKnight 

and Voas (2001); Tippetts and Voas (1998); Voas et al. 

(1999, 2002); Weinrath (1997). 

72 Beck, Rauch, Baker, and Williams (1999); Beirness 

(2001); Coben and Larkin (1998); Fulkerson (2003), 

finding positive effect for younger and repeat drunk 

drivers, but not for first-time offenders over the age 

of 30; Tippetts and Voas (1998, 1999). 

73 Marques, Voas, and Hodgins (1998); Tippetts and Voas 

(1998); Voas et al. (2002). 

74 Cavaiola and Wuth (2002); Breckenridge, Winfree, 

Maupin, and Clason (2000); Helander (2002); 

McKnight and Voas (2001); Taxman and Piquero 

(1998); Wells-Parker et al. (1995); DeYoung (1997); 

Pratt, Holsinger, and Latessa (2000). 

75 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

76 Helander (2002).

77 See Helander (2002) for evidence of effectiveness; 

see McKnight and Voas (2001) for evidence of 

ineffectiveness. 

78 Goldstein and Susmilch (1982). 

79 Jones and Lacey (1999). 

80 Wagenaar, Murray, and Toomey (2000); Wilson and 

Mann (1990).

81 Adrian, Ferguson, and Her (2001); Evans, Nevile, and 

Graham (1991); McKnight and Voas (2001); Saffer and 

Grossman (1987).

82 Whetten-Goldstein et al. (2000); Sloan et al. (2000). 
Endnotes 53 

 83 McKnight and Voas (2001).

84 Sloan et al. (2000).

85 McKnight and Voas (2001).

86 Holder and Wagenaar (1994); Shults et al. (2001).

87 McKnight and Voas (2001).

88 Simons-Morton and Cummings (1997).

89 McKnight and Voas (2001). But see Sloan et al. (2000), 

concluding that enforcement of over-serving and 

serving minors laws does not significantly deter these 

practices.

90 Peel Regional Police (1996).

91 Sloan et al. (2000).

92 Williams (1994); Yanovitsky (2002); Blomberg (1992).

93 DeJong and Atkin (1995); Helander (2002); Dieringer 

Research Group, Inc. (2001).

94 DeJong and Atkin (1995); Glendon and Cernecca 

(2003); Elder et al. (2005); Substance Abuse and 

Mental Health Services Administration (1999).

95 DeJong and Atkin (1995); McKnight and Voas (2001); 

Yanovitsky (2002).

96 McKnight and Voas (2001).

97 Elder et al. (2005).

98 DeJong and Atkin (1995).

99 Caudill, Harding, and Moore (2000, 2001); SimonsMorton and Cummings (1997). 

100 Lacey, Jones, and Anderson (2000); Chaptman (2004); 

Ross (1992). 

101 DeJong and Winsten (1999); National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (1999a); Roeper and Voas 

(1999).

102 Timmerman et al. (2003). 

103 Ditter et al. (2005).

104 See Gruenewald, Johnson, and Treno (2002) for a 

discussion of some of the issues relating to the 

density of drinking outlets and drunk driving. 
54 Drunk Driving 

105 Evans, Nevile, and Graham (1991); Fradella (2000); 

Ross (1992); Ross and Voas (1990); Sen (2001); Stewart 

and Sweedler (1997); Taxman and Piquero (1998). 

106 Kinkade and Leone (1992); Ross (1992). 

107 Helander (2002); McKnight and Voas (2001); Dieringer 

Research Group, Inc. (2001). 

108 Ross, McCleary, and LaFree (1990); Ross and Voas 

(1990).

109 McKnight and Voas (2001). 

110 Bishop (1987).

111 Polacsek et al. (2001); Rojek, Coverdill, and Fors 

(2003); Wheeler et al. (2004). 

112 Rojek, Coverdill, and Fors (2003). 

113 Lapham et al. (2004); Lewis, Lapham, and Skipper 

(1998); Ross (1992). 

114 Ross (1992). 
References 55 

References 

Adrian, M., B. Ferguson and M. Her (2001). “Can Alcohol 

Price Policies Be Used To Reduce Drunk Driving? 

Evidence From Canada.” Substance Use & Misuse 

36(13): 1923-1957. 

American Prosecutors Research Institute (2004). The Drug 

Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program: Targeting 

Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria (Virginia): 

American Prosecutors Research Institute. Accessible 

at www.ndaa-apri.org/pdf/drug_evaluation_ 

classification_dec.pdf 

Apsler, R., A. Char, W. Harding and T. Klein (1999). The 

Effects of .08 BAC Laws. Washington, D.C.: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Associated Press, “21,000 Drunken Drivers on the Road 

Daily,” May 24, 2004. 

———— “Red License Plates for Ohio Drunk Drivers,” 

Cleveland Plain Dealer, January 12, 2004. 

Beck, K., W. Rauch, E. Baker and A. Williams (1999). 

“Effects of Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on 

Drivers With Multiple Alcohol Offenses: A Random 

Trial in Maryland.” American Journal of Public Health 

89(11): 1696-1700. 

Beirness, D. (2001). Best Practices for Alcohol Interlock 

Programs. Ottawa (Ontario): Traffic Injury Research 

Foundation. 
56 Drunk Driving 

Beirness, D., D. Mayhew and H. Simpson (1997). Highlights 

of DWI Repeat Offenders: A Review and Synthesis of the 

Literature. Ottawa (Ontario): Traffic Injury Research 

Foundation. 

Bishop, K. “San Jose to Make Drunk-Driving Suspects 

Pay for Police Costs in Arrests.” The New York Times, 

December 29, 1987. 

Blackman, K., R. Voas, R. Gullberg and S. Tippetts (2001). 

“Enforcement of Zero Tolerance in the State of 

Washington—Evidence from Breath-Test Records.” 

Forensic Science Review 13(2): 77-86. 

Bowman, J., and J. Stemler (2005). “Sobriety Checkpoints: 

Doing More Checkpoints with LESS.” Police Chief 

72(7). 

Breckenridge, J., L. Winfree, J. Maupin and D. Clason 

(2000). “Drunk Drivers, DWI ‘Drug Court’ Treatment, 

and Recidivism: Who Fails?” Justice Research and Policy 

2(1): 87-105. 

Caetano, R., and C. Clark (2000). “Hispanics, Blacks and 

Whites Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol: 

Results from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey.” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 32(1): 57-64. 

Caudill, B., W. Harding and B. Moore (2001). “DWI 

Prevention: Profiles of Drinkers Who Use Designated 

Drivers.” Addictive Behaviors 26: 155-166. 

———— (2000). “At-Risk Drinkers Use Safe Ride 

Services to Avoid Drinking and Driving.” Journal of 

Substance Abuse 11(2): 149-159. 
References 57 

Cavaiola, A., and C. Wuth (2002). Assessment and Treatment 

of the DWI Offender. New York: Haworth Press. 

Centers for Disease Control (2002). “Involvement by 

Young Drivers in Fatal Alcohol-Related Motor-Vehicle 

Crashes—United States, 1982-2001.” Morbidity and 

Mortality Weekly Report 51(48): 1089-1091. 

Century Council (2003). Combating Hard Core Drunk 

Driving: A Sourcebook of Promising Strategies, Laws & 

Programs. Washington, D.C.: Century Council. 

Coben, J., and G. Larkin (1998). “Effectiveness of 

Ignition Interlock Devices in Reducing Drunk Driving 

Recidivism.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 

16: 81-87.

Dee, T. (2001). “Does Setting Limits Save Lives? The Case 

of the 0.08 BAC Laws.” Journal of Policy Analysis and 

Management 20(1): 111-128. 

DeJong, W., and C. Atkin (1995). “A Review of National 

Television PSA Campaigns for Preventing AlcoholImpaired Driving, 1987-1992.” Journal of Public Health 

Policy 16: 59-80. 

DeJong, W., and J. Winsten (1999). “The Use of 

Designated Drivers by U.S. College Students.” Journal 

of American College Health 47(4): 151-156. 

Deshapriya, E., and N. Iwase (1996). “Are Lower Legal 

Blood Alcohol Limits and a Combination of Sanctions 

Desirable in Reducing Drunken Driver-Involved 

Traffic Fatalities and Traffic Accidents?” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 28(6): 721-731. 
58 Drunk Driving 

DeYoung, D. (2000). “An Evaluation of the General 

Deterrent Effect of Vehicle Impoundment on 

Suspended and Revoked Drivers in California.” Journal of 

Safety Research 31(2): 51-59. 

———— (1999). “An Evaluation of the Specific Deterrent 

Effects of Vehicle Impoundment on Suspended, 

Revoked, and Unlicensed Drivers in California.” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 31(1-2): 45-53. 

———— (1997). “An Evaluation of the Effectiveness 

of Alcohol Treatment, Driver License Actions and 

Jail Terms in Reducing Drunk Driving Recidivism in 

California.” Addiction 92(8): 989-998. 

Dieringer Research Group, Inc. (2001). “Evaluation of 

Alternatives to Incarceration for Repeat Drunken 

Driving.” Milwaukee: State of Wisconsin Department 

of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Safety. 

Ditter, S., R. Elder, R. Shults, D. Sleet, R. Compton and J. 

Nichols (2005). “Effectiveness of Designated Driver 

Programs for Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving.” 

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(5S): 280-287. 

Eisenberg, D. (2003). “Evaluating the Effective of Policies 

Related to Drunk Driving.” Journal of Policy Analysis and 

Management 22(2): 249-274. 

Elder, R., J. Nichols, R. Shults, D. Sleet, L. Barrios and 

R. Compton (2005). “Effectiveness of School-Based

Programs for Reducing Drinking and Driving and

Riding with Drinking Drivers: A Systematic Review.”

American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(5S):

288-304.
References 59 

Elder, R., R. Shults, D. Sleet, J. Nichols, S. Zaza and 

R. Thompson (2002). “Effectiveness of Sobriety

Checkpoints for Reducing Alcohol-Involved Crashes.”

Traffic Injury Prevention 3: 266-274.

Evans, W., D. Nevile and J. Graham (1991). “General 

Deterrence of Drunk Driving: Evaluation of Recent 

American Policies.” Risk Analysis 11(2): 279-289. 

Fell, J., S. Ferguson, A. Williams and M. Fields (2003). 

“Why Are Sobriety Checkpoints Not Widely Adopted 

as an Enforcement Strategy in the United States?” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 39(6): 897-902. 

Fell, J., and R. Voas (2003). The Effectiveness of Reducing 

Illegal Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Limits for 

Driving: Evidence for Lowering the Limit to .05 BAC in 

Canada. Calverton (Maryland): Pacific Institute for 

Research & Evaluation. 

Foss, R., J. Stewart and D. Reinfurt (2001). “Evaluation 

of the Effects of North Carolina’s 0.08 % BAC Law.” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 33: 507-517. 

Fradella, H. (2000). “Mandatory Minimum Sentences: 

Arizona’s Ineffective Tool for the Social Control of 

Driving Under the Influence.” Criminal Justice Policy 

Review 11(2): 113-135. 

Fulkerson, A. (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. 
60 Drunk Driving 

Glendon, A., and L. Cernecca (2003). “Young Drivers’ 

Responses to Anti-Speeding and Anti-Drink-Driving 

Messages.” Transportation Research Part F 6(3): 197-216. 

Goldstein, H., and C. Susmilch (1982). “The DrinkingDriver in Madison: A Study of the Problem and 

the Community’s Response.” Development of 

Problem-Oriented Policing Series, Volume II. 

Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School. 

Accessible at http://www.popcenter.org/Library/ 

researcherprojects/DevelopmentofPOPVolII.pdf 

Greene, J. (2003). “Battling DUI: A Comparative Analysis 

of Checkpoints and Saturation Patrols.” FBI Law 

Enforcement Bulletin 72(1): 1-6. 

Grosvenor, D., T. Toomey and A. Wagenaar (1999). 

“Deterrence and the Adolescent Drinking Driver.” 

Journal of Safety Research 30(3): 187-191. 

Gruenewald, P., F. Johnson and A. Treno (2002). “Outlets, 

Drinking and Driving: A Multilevel Analysis of 

Availability.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 460-468. 

Harvey, J., and J. Caldwell. “Towns Liable If Police Let 

Drunks Drive—SJC.” Boston Globe, August, 1984. 

Helander, C. (2002). DUI Countermeasures in California: 

What Works and What Doesn’t, with Recommendations for 

Legislative Reform. Sacramento: California Department 

of Motor Vehicles. 

Holder, H., and A. Wagenaar (1994). “Mandated Server 

Training and the Reduction of Alcohol-Involved 

Traffic Crashes: A Time Series Analysis of the Oregon 

Experience.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 26(1): 89­

97. 
References 61 

Homel, R. (1998). “Policing Alcohol Problems.” In T. 

Shelley and A. Grant (eds.), Problem-Oriented Policing: 

Crime-Specific Problems, Critical Issues and Making POP 

Work. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research 

Forum. 

———— (1988). Policing and Punishing the Drinking Driver: 

A Study of General and Specific Deterrence. New York: 

Springer-Verlag. 

Imrie, R. “Unchanged Drunken Drivers: New Lower Limit 

Shows No Reduction in Fatal Crashes.” Wisconsin State 

Journal, July 1, 2004. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (2004). 

Highway Safety Desk Book. Alexandria (Virginia): 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Accessible at http://www.theiacp.org/div_sec_com/ 

committees/HighwaySafteyDeskTop.pdf 

Jones, R., and J. Lacey (2000). State of Knowledge of AlcoholImpaired Driving Research on Repeat DWI Offenders. 

Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. 

———— (1999). Evaluation of a Day Reporting Center for 

Repeat DWI Offenders. Washington, D.C.: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Jones, R., J. Lacey and C. Wiliszowski (1998). Problems and 

Solutions in DWI Enforcement Systems. Washington, D.C.: 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
62 Drunk Driving 

Karsten, C., and M. Rothschild (2003). The Road Crew 

Final Report. Madison: Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety. NHTSA 

Discretionary Cooperative Agreement, DTNH22-01-

H-07010. Accessible at http://www.dot.wisconsin. 

gov/library/publications/topic/safety/roadcrew.pdf 

Lacey, J., and R. Jones (2000). Evaluation of Changes in New 

Mexico’s Anti-DWI Efforts. Washington, D.C.: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Lacey, J., R. Jones and E. Anderson (2000). Evaluation of 

a Full-Time Ride Service Program: Aspen, Colorado’s Tipsy 

Taxi Service. Washington, D.C.: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

Lacey, J., R. Jones and R. Smith (1999). Evaluation of 

Checkpoint Tennessee: Tennessee’s Statewide Sobriety 

Checkpoint Program. Washington, D.C.: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Lancashire Constabulary (1999). “Drink–Link Initiative.” 

Submission for the Tilley Award in Problem-Oriented 

Policing. 

Lapham, S., P. Gruenewald, L. Remer and L. Layne 

(2004). “New Mexico’s 1998 Drive-up Liquor Window 

Closure. Study I: Effect on Alcohol-involved Crashes.” 

Addiction 99(5): 598-606. 

Lewis, N., S. Lapham and B. Skipper (1998). “Drive-Up 

Liquor Windows and Convicted Drunk Drivers: A 

Comparative Analysis of Place of Purchase.” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 30(6): 761-772. 
References 63 

Liu, S., P. Siegel, R. Brewer, A. Mokdad, D. Sleet and M. 

Serdula (1997). “Prevalence of Alcohol-Impaired 

Driving: Results From a National Self-Reported 

Survey of Health Behaviors.” JAMA: Journal of the 

American Medical Association 277(2): 122-125. 

Löbmann, R. (2002). “Drunk Driving: Probability of 

Detection and Its Perception.” Policing: An International 

Journal of Police Strategies & Management 25(4): 770-788. 

Mann, R., S. Macdonald, G. Stoduto, S. Bondy, B. Jonah 

and A. Shaikh (2001). “The Effects of Introducing 

or Lowering Legal Per Se Blood Alcohol Limits for 

Driving: An International Review.” Accident Analysis 

and Prevention 33: 569-583. 

Marowitz, L. (1996). Predicting DUI Recidivism: Volume 1. 

Blood Alcohol Concentration and Driver Record Factors. 

Sacramento: California Department of Motor 

Vehicles. 

Marques, P., A. Tippetts and R. Voas (2003). “Comparative 

and Joint Prediction of DUI Recidivism from Alcohol 

Ignition Interlock and Driver Records.” Journal of 

Studies on Alcohol 64: 83-92. 

———— (2001). “Predicting Repeat DUI Offenses with 

the Alcohol Interlock Recorder.” Accident Analysis and 

Prevention 33(5): 609-619. 

Marques, P., R. Voas and D. Hodgins (1998). “Vehicle 

Interlock Programs: Protecting the Community 

Against the Drunk Driver.” Journal of Prevention & 

Intervention in the Community 17: 33-46. 
64 Drunk Driving 

Mastrofski, S., and R. Ritti (1996). “Police Training 

and the Effects of Organization on Drunk Driving 

Enforcement.” Justice Quarterly 13(2): 290-320. 

McArthur, D., and J. Kraus (1999). “The Specific 

Deterrence of Administrative Per Se Laws in Reducing 

Drunk Driving Recidivism.” American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine 16(1S): 68-75. 

McCartt, A., L. Geary and W. Nissen (2004). 

“Observational Study of the Extent of Driving While 

Suspended for Alcohol-Impaired Driving.” Impaired 

Driving Update, Spring. 

McCartt, A., W. Leaf, C. Farmer, S. Ferguson and A. 

Williams (2001). “Effects of Florida’s Graduated 

Licensing Program on the Behaviors and Attitudes of 

Teenagers.” Journal of Safety Research 32: 119-131. 

McKnight, A., and R. Voas (2001). “Prevention of 

Alcohol-Related Road Crashes.” In N. Heather, T. 

Peters and T. Stockwell (eds.), International Handbook 

of Alcohol Dependence and Problems. Chichester (United 

Kingdom): Wiley. 

Miller, T., M. Galbraith and B. Lawrence (1998). “Costs 

and Benefits of a Community Sobriety Checkpoint 

Program.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59: 462-468. 

Moskowitz, H., and D. Fiorentino (2000). A Review of 

the Literature on the Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on 

Driving-Related Skills. Washington, D.C.: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
References 65 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2003a). 

“Extent of Driving While Suspended for DWI.” Traffic 

Safety Facts, No. 278, July 2003. 

———— (2003b). “National Survey of Drinking and 

Driving Attitudes and Behaviors, 2001.” Traffic Safety 

Facts, No. 280, July 2003. 

———— (2002). Traffic Safety Facts 2001: Alcohol. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Accessible at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot/gov/pdf/ 

nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2001/2001alcohol.pdf 

———— (1999a). National Survey of Drinking and Driving 

Attitudes and Behavior: 1997. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Transportation, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

———— (1999b). Effectiveness of the Ohio Vehicle Action 

and Administrative License Suspension Laws. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

———— (1997). The Detection of DWI at BACs Below 0.10. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

———— (1992). The Detection of DWI Motorcyclists. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 
66 Drunk Driving 

———— (no date). Drug Evaluation and Classification 

Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. Accessible at http://www.nhtsa.dot. 

gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20C 

ontrol/Articles/Associated%20Files/drepp.pdf 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Police 

Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Office of 

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999). 

Strategies for Success: Combating Juvenile DUI. Washington, 

D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Accessible at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ 

injury/alcohol/juveniledui/ 

Peck, R., and R. Voas (2002). “Forfeiture Programs in 

California: Why So Few?” Journal of Safety Research 33: 

245-258. 

Peel Police Department (1996). “The Last Drink 

Program.” Submission for the Herman Goldstein 

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Polacsek, M., E. Rogers, W. Woodall, H. Delaney, D. 

Wheeler and N. Rao (2001). “MADD Victim Impact 

Panels and Stages-of-Change in Drink Driving 

Prevention.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 62(3): 344-350. 

Pratt, T., A. Holsinger, and E. Latessa (2000). “Treating 

the Chronic DUI Offender: ‘Turning Point’ Ten Years 

Later.” Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 271-281. 

Presseur, D., C. Solé and K. Stewart (1999). A Guide to 

Zero Tolerance and Graduated Licensing: Two Strategies 

That Work. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 
References 67 

Roeper, P., and R. Voas (1999). “Underage Drinkers are 

Separating Drinking from Driving.” American Journal of 

Public Health 89(5): 755-757. 

Rogers, P. (1997). The Specific Deterrent Impact of 

California’s 0.08 % Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit 

and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws. 

Sacramento: California Department of Motor 

Vehicles. 

———— (1995). The General Deterrent Impact of California’s 

0.8 % Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit and Administrative

Per Se License Suspension Laws. Sacramento: California

Department of Motor Vehicles.

Rojek, D., J. Coverdill and S. Fors (2003). “The Effect of 

Victim Impact Panels on DUI Rearrest Rates: A FiveYear Follow-Up.” Criminology 41(4): 1319-1340. 

Ross, H. (1992). Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for 

Saving Lives. New Haven (Connecticut): Yale University 

Press. 

Ross, H., R. McCleary, and G. LaFree (1990). “Can 

Mandatory Jail Laws Deter Drunk Driving? The 

Arizona Case.” Criminology 81(1): 156-170. 

Ross, H., S. Simon and J. Cleary (1996). “License Plate 

Confiscation for Persistent Alcohol Impaired Drivers.” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 28(1): 53-61. 

Ross, H., and R. Voas (1990). “The New Philadelphia 

Story: The Effects of Severe Punishment for Drunk 

Driving.” Law & Policy 12(1): 51-77. 
68 Drunk Driving 

Saffer, H., and M. Grossman (1987). “Beer Taxes, the 

Legal Drinking Age, and Youth Motor Vehicle 

Fatalities.” Journal of Legal Studies 16: 351-374. 

Safir, H., G. Grasso and R. Messner (2000). “The New 

York City Police Department DWI Forfeiture 

Initiative.” In H. Laurell and F. Schlyter (eds.), Alcohol, 

Drugs and Traffic Safety – T 2000: Proceedings of the 15th 

International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, 

Vol. 3, Sweden, May 22-26, 2000. 

Scopatz, R., C. Hatch, B. DeLucia and K. Tays (2003). 

Unlicensed to Kill: The Sequel. Washington, D.C.: AAA 

Foundation for Traffic Safety. 

Sen, A. (2001). “Do Stricter Penalties Deter Drinking 

and Driving? An Empirical Investigation of Canadian 

Impaired Driving Laws.” Canadian Journal of Economics 

34(1): 149-164. 

Shults, R., R. Elder, D. Sleet, J. Nichols, M. Alao, V. 

Carande-Kulis, S. Zaza, D. Sosin and R. Thompson 

(2001). “Reviews of Evidence Regarding Interventions 

to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving.” American Journal 

of Preventive Medicine 21(4): 66-88. 

Simons-Morton, B., and S. Cummings (1997). “Evaluation 

of a Local Designated Driver and Responsible Server 

Program to Prevent Drinking and Driving.” Journal of 

Drug Education 27(4): 321-333. 

Simpson, H., and R. Robertson (2001). DWI System 

Improvements for Dealing with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: 

Enforcement. Ottawa (Ontario): Traffic Injury Research 

Foundation. 
References 69 

Sloan, F., E. Stout, K. Whetton-Goldstein and L. Liang 

(2000). Drinkers, Drivers, and Bartenders: Balancing Private 

Choices and Public Accountability. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press. 

Snow, R., and E. Wells-Parker (2001). “Relationships 

Between Drinking Problems and Drinking Locations 

Among Convicted Drinking Drivers.” American Journal 

of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 27(3): 532-542. 

Stewart, K., and B. Sweedler (1997). “Driving Under the 

Influence of Alcohol.” In M. Plant , E. Single and T. 

Stockwell (eds.), Alcohol: Minimising the Harm: What 

Works? London: Free Association Books. 

Stuster, J., M. Burns and D. Fiorentino (2002). Open 

Container Laws and Alcohol Involved Crashes: Some 

Preliminary Data. Washington, D.C.: National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

Timmerman, M., E. Geller, K. Glindermann and A. 

Fournier (2003). “Do the Designated Drivers of 

College Students Stay Sober?” Journal of Safety Research 

34(2): 127-133. 

Tippetts, A., and R. Voas (1998). “The Effectiveness of 

the West Virginia Interlock Program.” Journal of Traffic 

Medicine 26(1-2): 19-24. 

Toomey, T., C. Rosenfeld and A. Wagenaar (1996). “The 

Minimum Legal Drinking Age: History, Effectiveness, 

and Ongoing Debate.” Alcohol Health and Research 

World 20(4): 213-218. 
70 Drunk Driving 

Ulmer, R., D. Presseur, A. Williams, S. Ferguson and 

C. Farmer (2000). “Effect of Florida’s Graduated 

Licensing Program on the Crash Rate of Teenage 

Drivers.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 32: 

527-532. 

Ulmer, R., V. Shabanova and D. Presseur (2001). Evaluation 

of Use and Lose Laws. Washington, D.C.: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

U.S. General Accounting Office (1999). Highway Safety: 

Effectiveness of State .08 Blood Alcohol Laws. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office. 

Voas, R., K. Blackman, A. Tippetts and P. Marques (2002). 

“Evaluation of a Program to Motivate Impaired 

Driving Offenders to Install Ignition Interlocks.” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 34: 449-455. 

Voas, R., and D. DeYoung (2002). “Vehicle Action: 

Effective Policy for Controlling Drunk and Other 

High-Risk Drivers?” Accident Analysis and Prevention 

34(4): 263-270. 

Voas, R., H. Holder and P. Gruenewald (1997). “The 

Effect of Drinking and Driving Interventions 

on Alcohol-Involved Traffic Crashes Within a 

Comprehensive Community Trial.” Addiction 92(6): 

221-236. 

Voas, R., P. Marques, A. Tippetts and D. Beirness (1999). 

“The Alberta Interlock Program: The Evaluation 

of a Province-Wide Program on DUI Recidivism.” 

Addiction 94(12): 1857-1867. 
References 71 

Voas, R., A. Tippetts and J. Fell (2003). “Assessing the 

Effectiveness of Minimum Legal Drinking Age and 

Zero Tolerance Laws in the United States.” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 35(4): 579-587. 

———— (2000). “The Relationship of Alcohol Safety 

Laws to Drinking Drivers in Fatal Crashes.” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 32(4): 483-492. 

Voas, R., A. Tippetts and J. Lange (1997). “Evaluation 

of a Method for Reducing Unlicensed Driving: The 

Washington and Oregon License Plate Sticker Laws.” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention 29(5): 627-634. 

Voas, R., A. Tippetts and E. Taylor (2002). “The Illinois 

.08 Law: An Evaluation.” Journal of Safety Research 33: 

73-80. 

———— (1997). “Temporary Vehicle Immobilization: 

Evaluation of a Program in Ohio.” Accident Analysis 

and Prevention 29(5): 635-642. 

Voas, R., J. Wells, D. Lestina, A. Williams and M. Greene 

(1998). “Drinking and Driving in the United States: 

The 1996 National Roadside Survey.” Accident Analysis 

and Prevention 30(2): 267-275. 

Wagenaar, A., D. Murray and T. Toomey (2000). 

“Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol 

(CMCA): Effects of a Randomized Trial on Arrests 

and Traffic Crashes.” Addiction 95(2): 209-217. 
72 Drunk Driving 

Wagenaar, A., P. O’Malley and C. LaFond (2001). 

“Lowered Legal Blood Alcohol Limits for Young 

Drivers: Effects on Drinking, Driving, and DrivingAfter-Drinking Behaviors in 30 States.” American 

Journal of Public Health 91: 801-804. 

Wagenaar, A., and T. Toomey (2002). “Effects of 

Minimum Drinking Age Laws: Review and Analysis of 

the Literature from 1960 to 2000.” Journal of Studies on 

Alcohol Supp. No. 14: 206-225. 

Weinrath, M. (1997). “The Ignition Interlock Program 

for Drunk Drivers: A Multivariate Test.” Crime and 

Delinquency 43(1): 42-59. 

Wells-Parker, E., R. Bangert-Drowns, R. McMillen and 

M. Williams (1995). “Final Results From a MetaAnalysis of Remedial Interventions With Drink/Drive 

Offenders.” Addiction 90: 907-926. 

Wheeler, D., E. Rogers, J. Tonigan, and W. Woodall 

(2004). “Effectiveness of Customized Victim Impact 

Panels on First-time DWI Offender Inmates.” Accident 

Analysis and Prevention 36:29-35. 

Whetten-Goldstein, K., F. Sloan, E. Stout and L. Liang 

(2000). “Civil Liability, Criminal Law, and Other 

Policies and Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Fatalities 

in the U.S.: 1984-1995.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 

32(6): 723-733. 

Wichita Police Department (1998). “Intoxicated Drivers.” 

Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for 

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. 
References 73 

Wieczorek, W., and J. Coyle (1998). “Targeting DWI 

Prevention.” Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the 

Community 17: 15-30. 

Williams, A. (1994). “The Contribution of Education and 

Public Information to Reducing Alcohol-Impaired 

Driving.” Alcohol, Drugs and Driving 10: 197-205. 

Wilson, R., and R. Mann, eds. (1990). Drinking and Driving: 

Advances in Research and Prevention. New York: Guilford 

Press. 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2005). 2004 

Wisconsin SafeRide Annual Report and Evaluation. 

Madison: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 

Division of State Patrol, Bureau of Transportation 

Safety. Accessible at http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/ 

library/publications/topic/safety/saferide.pdf 

Yanovitsky, I. (2002). “Effects of News Coverage on the 

Prevalence of Drunk-Driving Behavior: Evidence 

from a Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 

63(3): 342-351. 

Zador, P., S. Krawchuk, and R. Voas (2000). “Relative 

Risk of Fatal Crash Involvement by BAC, Age, and 

Gender.” Washington, D.C.: United States Department 

of Transportation, and National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration. DOT HS 809 050, April. 
74 Drunk Driving 

Zador, P., S. Krawchuk and B. Moore (2000). “Drinking 

and Driving Trips, Stops by the Police, and Arrests: 

Analyses of the 1995 National Survey of Drinking 

and Driving Attitudes and Behavior.” Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DOT HS 809 

184, December. 

Zwerling, C. (1999). “Evaluation of the Effectiveness of 

Low Blood Alcohol Concentration Laws for Younger 

Drivers.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 16(Supp. 

1): 76-80. 

Zwerling, C., and M. Jones (1999). “Evaluation of the 

Effectiveness of Low Blood Alcohol Concentration 

Laws for Younger Drivers.” American Journal of 

Preventive Medicine 16(Supp. 1): 76-80. 
About the Authors 75 

About the Authors 

Michael S. Scott 

Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for Problem-Oriented 

Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison Law School. He was formerly chief of police in 

Lauderhill, Florida; served in various civilian administrative positions 

in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Florida, and New York 

City police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison, 

Wisconsin, Police Department. Scott developed training programs in 

problem-oriented policing at the Police Executive Research Forum 

(PERF). He was the 1996 recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for 

innovation and leadership in policing. He is a judge for the Herman 

Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Scott 

holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor’s degree 

from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

Nina J. Emerson 

Nina J. Emerson is the director of the Resource Center on Impaired 

Driving at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School. The 

Resource Center was established in 1992 as a collaboration between 

the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the University of 

Wisconsin Law School as a neutral information clearinghouse on 

matters relating to impaired driving issues for judges, prosecutors, 

law enforcement officers, defense attorneys, legislators, educators, 

and citizens. Ms. Emerson holds a law degree from the University 

of Wisconsin Law School and a baccalaureate from Regis College in 

Denver. 
76 Drunk Driving 

Louis B. Antonacci 

Lou Antonacci is assistant counsel for the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers, Engineering and Support Center in Huntsville, 

Alabama. He reviewed the research literature on drunk driving 

for this project while he was a student at the University of 

Wisconsin Law School, from which he graduated in 2004. 

Joel B. Plant 

Joel Plant is a third-year student at the University of 

Wisconsin Law School. He assisted with the literature review 

for this guide. Prior to attending law school, he was a crime 

analyst for the Tempe (Arizona) Police Department. Plant 

holds a master’s degree from Arizona State University and a 

bachelor’s degree from Marquette University. 
Recommended Readings 77 

Recommended Readings 

• A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their 

Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This 

guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners 

to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying 

public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It 

provides guidance on whether and how to conduct costeffective surveys. 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An 

Introductory Guide for Police Problem-Solvers,

by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide 

is a companion to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series. 

It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing 

problem-oriented policing efforts. 

• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel 

(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with 

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic 

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The 

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs. 

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of 

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing 

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of 

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 
78 Drunk Driving 

• Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing: The 

1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This 

document produced by the National Institute of Justice 

in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum 

provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the 

annual award program that recognizes exemplary problemoriented responses to various community problems. A 

similar publication is available for the award winners from 

subsequent years. The documents are also available at 

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime 

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office 

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and 

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective 

or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in 

England and Wales. 

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory 

for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. 

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity 

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory 

have practical implications for the police in their efforts to 

prevent crime. 

• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police 

Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem 

analysis and provides guidance on how problem analysis 

can be integrated and institutionalized into modern 

policing practices. 
Recommended Readings 79 

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein 

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). 

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented 

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses 

how a police agency can implement the concept. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention, 

by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003). 

Provides a thorough review of significant policing research 

about problem places, high-activity offenders, and repeat 

victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings 

to problem-oriented policing. Explains how police 

departments can facilitate problem-oriented policing by 

improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and 

securing productive partnerships. 

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the 

First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of 

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have 

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes 

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report 

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in 

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman 

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the 

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the 

problem-solving process, and provides examples of 

effective problem-solving in one agency. 
80 Drunk Driving 

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing 

Crime and Disorder Through Problem-Solving 

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott 

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at www.cops.usdoj. 

gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem-solving, 

basic information on the SARA model and detailed 

suggestions about the problem-solving process. 

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case 

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke 

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and 

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: 

Case Studies in Problem-Solving, by Rana Sampson 

and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available 

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective 

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder 

problems. 

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook 

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for 

police to analyzing problems within the context of 

problem-oriented policing. 

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement 

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. 

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains 

many of the basics of research as it applies to police 

management and problem-solving. 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police Appendix 81 

Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides series: 

1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-00-2 

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0 

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-02-9 

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. 

Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7 

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5 

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-05-3 

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1 

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. 

ISBN: 1-932582-07-X 

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8 

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. 

Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6 

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X 

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8 

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6 

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4 

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-14-2 

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-15-0 

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-16-9 

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 

2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7 

19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-18-5 
82 Drunk Driving 

20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly. 

Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-22-3 

21. Check and Card Fraud. Graeme R. Newman. 2003. 

ISBN: 1-932582-27-4 

22. Stalking. The National Center for Victims of Crime. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-30-4 

23. Gun Violence Among Serious Young Offenders. Anthony A. 

Braga. 2004. ISBN: 1-932582-31-2 

24. Prescription Fraud. Julie Wartell and Nancy G. La Vigne. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-33-9 

25. Identity Theft. Graeme R. Newman. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-35-3 

26. Crimes Against Tourists. Ronald W. Glesnor and Kenneth J. Peak. 

2004 ISBN: 1-932582-36-3 

27. Underage Drinking. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2004 ISBN: 1-932582-39-8 

28. Street Racing. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-42-8 

29. Cruising. Kenneth J. Peak and Ronald W. Glensor. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-43-6 

30. Disorder at Budget Motels. Karin Schmerler. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

31. Drug Dealing in Open-Air Markets. Alex Harocopos and Mike 

Hough. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-45-2 

32. Bomb Threats in Schools. Graeme R. Newman. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-46-0 

33. Illicit Sexual Activity in Public Places. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-47-9 

34. Robbery of Taxi Drivers. Martha J. Smith. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-932582-50-9 

35. School Vandalism and Break-Ins. Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2005. 

ISBN: 1-9325802-51-7 

36. Drunk Driving. Michael S. Scott, Nina J. Emerson, Louis B. 

Antonacci, and Joel B. Plant. 2006. ISBN: 1-932582-57-6 
Other Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 83 

Response Guides series: 

• The Benefits and Consequences of Police 

Crackdowns. 

Michael S. Scott. 2003. ISBN: 1-932582-24-X 

• Closing Streets and Alleys to Reduce Crime: Should 

You Go Down This Road? Ronald V. Clarke. 2004. 

ISBN: 1-932582-41-X 

• Shifting and Sharing Responsibility for Public Safety 

Problems. Michael S. Scott and Herman Goldstein. 

2005. ISBN: 1-932582-55-X 

Problem-Solving Tools series: 

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory 

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 

ISBN: 1-932582-19-3 

• Researching a Problem. Ronald V. Clarke and Phyllis A. 

Schultz. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-48-7 

• Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem 

Solving. Scott H. Decker. 2005. ISBN: 1932582-49-5 

• Analyzing Repeat Victimization. Deborah Lamm 

Weisel. 2005. ISBN: 1-932582-54-1 

Upcoming Problem-Oriented Guides for Police 

Problem-Specific Guides 

Domestic Violence 

Mentally Ill Persons 

Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses 

Bank Robbery 

Witness Intimidation 

Drive-by Shootings 
84 Drunk Driving 

Juvenile Runaways 

Exploitation of Trafficked Women 

Problem with Day Laborer Sites 

Child Pornography on the Internet 

Crowd Control at Stadiums and Other Entertainment Venues 

Traffic Congestion Around Schools 

Problem-Solving Tools 

Forming and Sustaining Problem-Solving Partnerships with 

Businesses 

Risky Facilities 

Response Guides 

Crime Prevention Publicity Campaigns 

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design 

Video Surveillance of Public Places 

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for 

Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call 

the Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770 

or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdoj.gov. 



FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

Visit COPS Online at the address listed below. 

e12051224 

: 1-932582-57-6 

 Updated Date: February 7, 2006 

ISBN

www.cops.usdoj.gov