for installment payments give a defendant the opportunity to pay off their fine rather than having to pay all of the money the day of court. Many offenders, although not all, are also ordered to the Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program (ADSAP), a requirement for license reinstatement. Jail time was ordered in only a very small number of cases. Sometimes offenders are ordered to attend a MADD Victim Impact Panel and hear firsthand accounts of those impacted by drunk or drugged driving. Conclusions and Recommendations In summary of the above data, we put forth the following as the most compelling aspects: • Many factors result in the disappointing reality that less than half of the cases we monitored ended up as a DUI conviction. It is unthinkable that more than half of those arrested for DUI were not actually driving impaired. • Our state’s DUI laws need an overhaul with an eye toward simplification and eliminating loopholes that are more about helping offenders escape justice than protecting the rights of the accused. Every statute should be viewed from the perspective of whether it is aiding public safety or contributing to our state’s terrible impaired driving statistics. Areas to focus should include the statutes around the dash cam recording, blood draws, and breath test refusal penalties. • We should build on the newly strengthened Emma’s Law regarding the use of Ignition Interlock Devices and also require their installation for those who refused the breath test when arrested up until their suspension hearing. • Areas that give little prosecution support to misdemeanor DUIs should change their practices as our data supports that prioritization of resources and conviction rates are correlated. We are optimistic this means that areas with low conviction rates can greatly improve, though it may not be easy. • The fight against DUIs requires a concerted effort and strong collaboration between prosecutors and law enforcement officers. By fostering effective, ongoing communication, these stakeholders can enhance the efficiency and impact of DUI enforcement efforts. • Judges can contribute to an improvement in our state’s DUI problem by better owning the culture of how DUI cases are treated in their courtroom. This includes recognizing the defense's impact of case delays on the likelihood of a conviction and seeking advance DUI training as cases, especially drugged driving cases, grow even more complicated. In some areas, we call for an end to judges being so protective of pro se defendants that they refuse all guilty pleas or even counsel defendants on how they should defend themselves.
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator