If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Report on

Administrative If Adjudication of Traffic Infractions Highway Safety Act of 1973 (Section 222)

July 1977 U.S. Department of Transportation National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 Report on Administrative Adjudication , . RS of Traffic Infractions Highway Safety JUN 1 B :79 Act of 1973 (Section 222)

July 1977 / U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Washington, D.C. 20590 \ \ Il '~I:" '~. ?J. '

(.:

()

o

o

c: <.' ___ __ L'I Contents

Preface 1 Figures Table 5 Sustained Rates in Foreword 2 Contested and Chart 1 Sample of U J) contested Summary Results of Proposed License Vioh'itions 17 Demonstration and Suspension Form 6 Research Projects 3 Tanle 6 Responses to Chart 2 SAFE Evaluation Qua~tiomJ on Conclusions 7 Design 11 Contents of Seattle SAFE 9 Hearing Notice 22 Tables Rhode Island SAFE 15 Table 7 Number of States Table 1 Summary of SAFE According or State Driver-Licensing-Hearing Hearing Activities Denying Driver Authority 19 and Outcomes for Rights to Hearing, Receptivity of Jurisdictions to the Three by Type of Action 23 Administrative Adjudication 25 Magistrates 12 Table 8 Rights of Driver at a Table 2 Percentage of Hearing in All Different Actions States 23 Applied by the Table 9 Additional Duties of Driver Hearing Officers 24 Improvement Analysts 13 Table 10 States Having Formal Training in Table 3 Percent of Traffic Hearing Offenders Procedures, Driver Recidivating 14 Improvement, and Table 4 MeanTime in Days to Traffic Safety 24 Occurrence of New Offense or Accident 14 Preface

The provisions of the Highway The Special Adjudication for In California, the transition from Safety Act of 1973, Section 222, Enforcement (SAFE) approach judicial to administrative direct the Secretary of integrates informal adjudication was difficult. Transportation to conduct projects administrative hearings with Opposition stemmed from judicial to demonstrate the administrative follow-up driver referrals. This third and legal sources, and the adjudication of traffic infractions annual report concludes that SAFE qualifications of the hearing officers and to report by July 1 of each year has been a milestone in the history were questioned. The California on the effectiveness of such a of adjudication and traffic research, legislature was not persuaded that system as compared with other and merits being continued as an the safety and cost benefits of the methods of handling minor traffic effective and inexpensive means of program outweighed questions violations. This is the third annual streamlining the nation's judicial about the rights of violators and the report of the Department of process. Other communities may need for procedural safeguards. Transportation in response to those adapt the special judicial In this and previous reports, *the directives. procedures to their situations. License hearing officers must be concept of administrative duly qualified and any agency adjudication applies to the infh.!ence avoided. noncriminal case processing and adjudication (within the judiciary or The Seattle SAFE found that the an executive agency) of traffic success of the projects was infractions such as speeding and attributable partly to the informal disobeying signs. signals, and parajudicial proceedings. but that roadway markings. the specific driver rehabilitation programs formed the major 'Report on Administrative AdJudication of Traffic Infractions. July 1975; July 1976; Supplemental benefits. Report, 1976 (Washington: U.S. Deoartment of In Rhode Island. the new program Transportation). reduced by 17 percent ~he backlog of cases, as well as the cost of hearings. and saved time to the police departments and prosecutors, and satisfied the public. Foreword

Until 1970 traffic adjudication highway safety by developing fair, effectiveness of the administrative throughout the country was efficient, and effective processing adjudication of traffic infractions as handled by the courts of limited and procedures for traffic infraction compared to traditional case jurisdiction. In July 1970 the State of adjudication, utilizing appropriate processing in New York State, and New York Implemented an punishment, training, and (2), the North Dakota traffic Administrative Adjudication rehabilitative measures for traffic infraction processing system as Program (NYAAP) for traffic offenders." compared to the traditional system infractions in New York City. A of South Dakota. There are no new The National Highway Traffic Safety strong lawyer, civil servant, results since the 1976 Supplemental Administration (NHTSA) therefore driver-licensing hearing capability Fleport on Administrative provided the cornerstone of the initiated research and Adjudication of Traffic Infractions. demonstration projects. Two NYMP. Special Adjudication for Demonstration and Research A national survey was recently Enforcement (SAFE) projects were Project Status completed to determine the status funded to demonstrate of State driver-licensi ng-agency administrative, noncriminal traffic Federal funding support of the first hearing authority. In addition, a infraction adjudication. The first, SAFE demonstration project in limited survey was conducted on awarded in fiscal year 1973 to the Seattle, Washington, ceased on the qualifications and training of State of Washi ngton Department of June 30, 1976. The final report driver-licensing-agency hearing Motor Vehicles and the Seattle required by NHTSA detailing results officers. Municipal Court, involved the from the two full years of operations adjudication of traffic infractions by was submitted in March 1977. The In recent years, the nation's lower parajudicials. The second project, Rhode Island SAFE project criminal courts have been awarded in fiscal year 1974 to the completed its first full year of inundated with a large nontraffic Rhode Island Department of operations in July 1976. The first criminal caseload. Limited judicial Transportation, involved the annual report detailing interim attention has therefore been given adjudication of traffic infractions by results from project activities was to traffic offenses and driver­ administrative hearing officers. The submitted in January 1977. licensing cases. The future of reports from both projects were administrative, noncriminal traffic Status reports on the progress to favorable. infraction adjudication may depend date of contractor efforts are given on the willingness of States to Previous NHTSA studies focused on in an ensuing section. Included are strengthen their hearing authority the'evalu;:ttion of traffic adjudication studies of the fairness, efficiency, capability and extend it to traffic approaches and the development of and effectiveness of administrative infractions. (This approach is in innovative, improved traffic case adjudication and noncriminal case keeping with recommendation I. D. disposition methods. A traffic case processing compared to traditional of the American Bar Association's processing model developed in one adjudication procedures; of the Report of Pou nd Conference of the studies was used by the St'ate degree of use by the States of Follow-up Task Force, August 1976 of California in a major feasibiilty administrative hearings in on the "increased use of the study and in preparing legislation to driver-licensing agencies; of administrative process as an pilot test administrative adjudication hearing-officer characteristics; of alternative to resort to the courts." of traffic offenses in that State. purpose and method of conducting hearings; of conformance to due Background An analysis was made of all State process requirements as prescribed Sec. 222 of the Highway Safaty Act laws that have reduced the bulk of by recent court decisions; and of of 1973 stated that "administrative the moving rule-of-the-road the development of a training adjudication demonstration projects violations to infractions. All the curriculum for shall be designed to improve available information on driver-licensing-agency hearing administrative adjudication and officers. noncriminal traffic case processing was summarized in a primer on advanced adjudication techniques. The primer, now in its second printing, was obtainable by interested jurisdictions. Currently, NHTSA is conducting comparative field research on (1), the fairness, efficiency and

2 Sumnlary "'" \l' " I{" Results of 0 ~ ...' 0 .. 'b':> 0 Demonstration & " CJ Research

Projects ()

': 1/ o .

;~. l dl " i I

fl "

II '

~\

Ii

(!,D o

ell

o

(1' l'

• 0

\\ i'

>,' fJ scheduling, easy access to Seattle SAFE Rhode Island SAFE cooperating agencies such as the Although not all Seattle SAFE Rhode Island is the first and only registry of motor vehicles, and the components and combinations of statewide administrative promulgation of policies for all components were equally effective adjudication program. The program elements of the organization. In improving traffic case is based on a State law that Whether the Rhode Island model decriminalized most traffic offenses adjudication effectiveness, certain could be transferred to other States and, created an Administrative subsystems revealed considerable would be determined by the scale of Adjudication Division, to implement promise as a strong nucleus for the the required operation. In larger and manage the system, in the development of an optional driver States, some regional organization control system. Some benefits were State's Department of may be more desirable than a totally Transportatlon. attributed to the informal, centralized one. parajudicial magistrate hearings, The first year report from the Rhode but the specific rehabilitation Island SAFE project states that the State Driver .. Licensing" programs accounted for major removal of most traffi c cases from Hearing Authority benefits. the court's jurisdiction reduced by NHTSA research has demonstrated Limitations of time and money did 17 percent the backlog of cases and that States must extend an not allow a detailed analysiS of each permitted the courts to take on new "opportunity to be heard" to of the Seattle SAFE system functions. The report makes the drivers, before their licenses may be elements available for assessment following additional points. withdrawn if there is discretion over In this complex system, but the • The public is satisfied and the withdrawal. Whenever there are grouping of elements into system accepts the system. . contested facts involved in the components did permit an adequate license withdrawal decision, the evaluation of the major features of • Savings of time to pOlice driver is entitled to a "trial type" the Seattle SAFE system. These departments and police hearing. State legislatures have full elements should provide a sound prosecutors is the result of power to determine where within basis for developing new and simplified procedures and the the State-the cou rts or an improved adjudication-sanction­ resolution of many cases at executive agency-should be vested rehabilitation procedures superior first hearing. Only 5 percent of the authority (1) to exercise this to those of the past. The SAFE the hearings involved discretion and (2) to conduct system elements are the following: contested cases. license withdrawal hearings. • Hearings costs were lower than Traffic laws and other regulations • Oefendant's driving records in traditional court system. concerning driver licenses were immediately available by video • Referrals to driver retraining enacted, historically, as measures to terminal access to State files and safety programs were protect the public safety on our for the adjudicator at the time made in 22 percent of the highways. Driver licensing agencies the case is heard. cases which were disposed of were given the primary responsibility for administering • Informal "one-on-one" at a hearing. traffic safety programs affecting adjudication processes, where • Processing and disposition of the defendant and the drivers, and for determining when traffic offenses in terms of (and sometimes for what reason) a magistrate discuss the case, consistency of .sanctions were and the magistrate renders a driver's license should be improved. withdrawn. The full authority and disposition. The administrative adjudication control over procedures for the • Counseling of offenders, and system installed under the SAFE issuance and withdrawal of driver diagnosis of their driving demonstration in Rhode Island is a licenses should be vested within a problems by trained driver workable one which is likely to be single agency. There are other improvement analysts. retained on a permanent basis. A reasons for vesting the hearing authority with the driver licensing .. }\pplication of general and budget submission was made to the agency, rather than the courts. problem-specific driver 1977 legislature for State funding rehabilitation training for fiscal year 1978. programs, where appropriate. Among the several advantages found in the structure of SAFE in Rhode Island are centralized record keeping, flexibility in hearing

4 Courts have become more and hearings. Beyond due process there the notice should include a list of more concerned with the backlog of are other factors, however, such as the offenses that culminated in the criminal cases and hence tend to the public perception of the fairness agency's seeking to withdraw the give less attention to traffic offenses of a proceeding, that should be license (See Chart 1). and license hearings. Moreover, it considered in establishing an can be demonstrated that organizational entity to conduct The information considered during administrative agencies can more these hearings. The appearance of the sanctioning portion of the effectively conduct hearings like justice often depends on the hearing depends primarily upon the those concerning the withdrawal of perceived degree of independence policy of each licensing agency as the driver license. of the decision maker, and this to what may be considered in affects the acceptable withdrawing the driver's license. For The authority of an administrative organizational relationships of the example, some States may provide agency to conduct hearings and various State personnel Involved in occupational licenses to those make determinations Is the proceeding. using their license as a means for strengthened by provisions set forth earning their living; other States do in the model Administrative From the perspective of the driver not believe that the need to drive Procedures Act (APA) under which the hearing is viewed as either a should affect whether or not a a court of law may reverse or modify first or a final contact with driver problem driver is permitted to retain the agency decisions. First, judicial control officials. It demonstrates his license. Furthermore, the reviews are to be conducted by the how licensing agencies may be driver's attitude, as shown by his court on the record, with the using the driver's appearance for a conduct during the hearing, may be addition of needed oral argument or license withdrawal hearing as the considered more by some States written briefs. The Model APA first step in screening problem than by others in setting the identifies specific reasons for which drivers. To use the hearing this way sanction. Specific guidelines would a court may reverse or modify a is inappropriate and demeans its be helpful in determining the decision, and these generally relate importance. The hearing has great amount of discretion over this to the agency's Interpretation or import for the driver in that it may process; these should also apply to application of the law. The model determine whether he retains his interviews providing the APA states that "the court shall not means of earning a livelihood. The "opportunity to be heard." substitute its judgment for that of hearing; therefore, should not be Driver licensing administratons are the agency as to the weight of the subverted by using license concerned with whether a speCial evidence on questions of fact,"1 and withdrawal appearances as simply a staff of legally trained hearing thus clearly delineates the authority screening mechanism. officers must be established to and responsibility of both the Current practices were evaluated conduct license withdrawal admini&trative agency and the court for their satisfaction of due process hearings. Although this is not with respect to the conduct of such requirements. The area of greatest necessary to satisfy due process, hearings. This concept should weakness was in notifying drivers many agencies may take this certainly apply to driver license that their licenses may be approach to obtain the capability cases. The driver licensing agency withdrawn and that they have an for conducting proper hearings. has sole jurisdictional authority to opportunity for a hearing. The issue licenses and, similarly, shOUld Due process does not require notice of proposed withdrawal is have sole authority to determine hearing officers to be lawyers. the key document to provide the when a driver's license is to be Nevertheless, the type of hearing driver with sufficient information on withdrawn, subject to judicial envisioned requires someone the reasons for the withdrawal review to guarantee due process. familiar with many legal techniques, action and on his rights. He can Eighteen jurisdictions currently do such as how to accept evidence and then determine whether or not to not have an APA that applies to enter it into a record, how to create request a hearing. This first notice licensing agency hearings. a record that will stand up to court to the driver should clearly state the review, and how to judge facts and Due process requires the separation reason that the license may be make decisions. These skills can, of withdrawn, and should include an of adjudicatory fUnctions from course, be taught through training explanation as well as a citation of enforcement fUnctions within programs, such as that being administrative agencies. This single the authorizing statute. When conducted by NHTSA.2 Hearing constraint only precludes a State appropriate, the date and time of from having enforcement officials the traffic offense shOUld be \ Model State Administrative Procedure Alit, conduct license withdrawal indicated, particularly for implied subsec. 15.(g), Uniform Laws Annotated. Vol, 9c, consent or financial responsibility 1967 Com. Stlpp. pp. 134-161. cases. For frequent violator cases, 2 In-service training seminar for the Driver LIcensing Administrative Hearing Officer. contract no. DOT-HS-5-01268. Apptred SCience Associates. loc .• 1976. 5 I" ...... - ...... - ...... ,..... ,...... ,...... -...... """ . officers must be able to control the conduct of the hearing and to iChart 1. SamplCi of Proposed Ltcense Suspenslipn Form interact with lawyers representing I licensees (these counsel often do not understand the procedures ('. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOPtlfATION applicable to drivel' license • ,9 DRIVER LIOE:NSE DIVISION headngs), States faced with a DRlVER1S NAME:OATE:.o..... choice of training nonlawyer I'TO: _0_ ... _-______hearing officers or of hiring new I ADDRi:SS 0 DRIVER LICENSE NO: personnel, may opt for ~he hiring of a ~/ CASE NO: • . D lawyers as a means of obtaining II NOTIOE OF PROPOSED I:JQENSE SUSPENSION qualified personnel as hearing .~ officers. I I You a1'~ hel'cby notified that your dl'ivel,ls license will be Iluspended due to YOU1' Openness of Jurisdictions to i accumulation of \'. points Oli your driving record as a ~L'esu1t of the following' Proposed Changeover ! traffic violations: n I Date Time J.. oc/ltion Violation The transition from judicial ) - - = ':1 i adjudication of traffic infractions to

administrative adjudication in Under the authority of Section of the State COde' of La:vso your 1\ I. o California was a difficult one. I license will be suspended 101'-,,-day:;. beginning on t unless Judicial and legal interests opposed i you request a helll'ing. the use of nonlawyer hearing \ u officers as traffic infraction adjudicators. There was also 1 YOU HAVE A, RIGH~ TO A HEARING BEFORE YOUR. I considerable opposition to i" LICENSE IS SUSPENDED. " "jl changing traffic infraction adjudication from a criminal to a I IF A WR'ITTEN 'REQUEST FO~ HEARING'IS RECEIVt!D BV , ,. civil and administrative procedure. I THIS DEPARTMENT WITHIN 30 DAvS OF THE DATE OF T~IS NO)'iCE I A central issue in the California I The, hea1'lng ,,,,iH detel'lrtilfu whethel' there is reason" the legislature's consideration of adequa~e. f~J ';P~oil!).~e~1 i s.uspenSlOTI,'l)r whether you may be, allowed to attend dl'lVl);1~ school and l'etam ;y;our I administrative adjudication of traffic I c. license b~cause of your need to drIve, To l'equlist a hel1.tlilg, please detach.~nd I infractions was the status and c()n'l:plete the form below and maili,t to:' j qUalifications of the hearing l

officers. Nonlawyer hearing officers 1 l'i;, Drivel' License Division ..1 who come from the ranks of the P.O.:Sox department of motor vehicles may City, State have too much of an "efficiencyl I .~, . c Telephone:" I safety" orientation to be fair and I Q 1 impartial in decisionmaking. I John Doe. Dinect-or ! The case for highway safety and i Drivel' License DivisiOn , J cost benefits of administrative adjudication has not been as l-:..------..:..---~-----~-'~ , persuasive to the California l ,'(II' I Driver's Name: Ddver ticense N~o.: legislature as concern over the I I

rights of the violator and the need I Notice Date: Case No.: ..' 0 . for special procedural safeguards in case processing. 1 request a. heal'ing on the p:t'£P~s~d suspension ,0£ lny driver'S license. 'this l'equest is made to, (check OM) : !J o refute the traffic convictions shown above o diseu$s my need to drive at work 01' to :my job o discuss my driving recol'd a~.d the l:easons for'the above violations o othel': ______.-;...~---~----- _ _I w '" (date)

6 ,------~------.-. CJ Conclusions --(I

,. ()

() I),·'

.//~/

./J // o I)

f ,/ / .,/ o

o \\

Cl = o "'~,',),", II " o Q () ,, v' " "

.-~ "u

, 0

o

o

-'0

1/

o

o

.,' SAFE in both States freed the Attention must be given also to the • The notice of proposed license courts of a large traffic caseload status and qualifications of the withdrawal shOUld clearly and reduced the per case driver-licensing-agency hearing inform the driver of his rights. processing costs. The impact on the officers. If the proceedings are to be • The notice of schedule subsequent driving performance of noncriminal in nature and some of appearance Should clearly offenders processed by the Seattle the hearings officers nonlawyers, it inform the driver of the SAFE magistrates was clearly will be necessary to try to insulate schedule and purpose of the demonstrated to be as effective as the hearing process from any appearance. the traditional court procedure. On appearance of undue the other hand, the even simpler driver-licensing-agency influence in • The driver should be informed bail forfeiture was also found to be Infraction case fact finding. of any procedures for least expensive and almost as administrative appeals of a Most jurisdictions need to improve effective as either the magistrate or hearing officer's dflcision. and upgrade their existing traditional system. it could not be Fu rther appeals to a court of driver-license-withdrawal hearing determined whether either law should be made on the capability. Jurisdictions should be magistrates or driver analysts could record. improve the effectiveness of driver aware that the impression of justice improvement programs by selecting left by these administrative hearings • The driver shOUld be informed the clients referred to these on the motoring publiC' and judicial of the findings of the hearings courses. and legal interests will reflect on and reasons for the agency's their professionalism and determination. Communities considering a competency in highway safety. parajudicial approach to handling Pending adoption of the Seattle • Trained specialists should traffic cases of the type covered by SAFE parajudicial model by more serve as hearing officers. the SAFE project should continue jurisdictions, progress will rest on • The hearing officer position evaluation of these procedures jurisdictions' willingness to improve shOUld be a senior level one in however, to insure that the SAFE their licensing agency hearing th& agency. results are applicable to their cap~bility. The following areas are particular jurisdiction. identified for improvement: In addition to relieving court • The authority to withdraw the caseload, a pivotal factor to any driver license and to conduct jurisdiction's decision to adopt a driver license hearings should parajudicial or administrative rest with the administrative adjudication of traffic infraction agency responsible for issuing should be the feasibility of and controlling driver licenses. integrating judicial sanction decisions with driver­ • Administrative procedures acts licensing-agency rehabilitation and should be adopted by all the license withdrawal decisions. The States and made applicable to Seattle SAFE parajudicial model driver-license-withdrawal proceedings. should be the standard for this integration. If such an integration is It An independent unit not feasible, serious consideration responsible for conducting trial should be given to the type hearings be established administrative adjudication and trial type hearings be approach. provided in all license withdrawal actions involving contested facts. • Driver control interviews and other driver screening mechanisms should be clearly separate from license withdrawal hearings.

8 Seattle SAFE

o

CI o

o

C?~,

o

0 (r'

i\'i a

'0 J.> \\

0 .>, ~ o " ~.~ '" , " "

0

': " 0 ~-~___:D " o

o

o

1\ ()

{j o o

o

:"\'l

!I' e::::::;, \3 0

cY {J " c==.~ D

'" ~,

(} ,"

o Special Adjudication for • Counseling of offenders, and components of the system. A Enforcement (SAFE)3 became diagnosis of their driving number of factors were measured: operational in Seattle in July 1974 problems by trained driver (i) Case processing and received Federal funds through improvement analysts. time--,--adjudication, analysis, June 1976. SAFE combined the rehabilitation; (2) caseflow adjudication processes of the • Application of traditional volume-numbers of cases entering courts and the driver improvement sanctions of fines and license and completing programmatic fUnctions of the State department of suspension where appropriate. system parts; (3) case motor vehicles and the local safety • Application of general and dispositions-verdicts, appeals, council in an effort to improve problem-specific driver referrals; (4) revenue and traffic safety and the utilization of rehabilitation training costs-fines and program public resources and facilities programs where appropriate. administration costs; (5) driver devoted to solving driver problems. recidivism-violations and The project's objectives were the • Education of the public accidents; (6) attitudes toward following: concerning the SAFE program. SAFE of affected population SAFE was designed and groups-SAFE defendants, public, • To apply swift and fair police, attorneys, adjudicators. adjudication to traffic implemented to permit scientific defendants. evaluation of the effectiveness of These outcomes were assessed and the program and its elements. Major compared for three adjudication • To identify problem drivers and features of the evaluation strategy alternatives as shown in Chart 2: iefer them to appropriate were the following: SAFE-adjudication in an informal corrective programs. • Random assignment to magistrate-defendant hearing; • To remove chronic traffic-law treatment and control groups, court-adjudication by trial with a violators from the roads. where appropriate and judge in the city municipal court; consistent with preservation of and no adjudication-the traditional Q To implement cost effective equal justice. . pre-SAFE practice of allowing adjudication and rehabilitation forfeiture of bail (ticket payment) by programs. • Comparisons of alternative mail or personal delivery. experimental treatments for • To reduce the traffic-case Case Processing: Volume burden of the municipal courts. handling minor traffic . violations. and Speed • To develop programs that are During 21V2 months of operation, accepted by the public and • Large sample sizes to facilitate SAFE processed 41,660 minor people who come in contact statistical and practical traffic cases, of which 65 percent with the programs. detection of significant differences in treatment involved mandatory appearances; • To reduce traffic violations and outcomes. 36 percent were speeding cases and accidents. 28 percent were multiple offenders, • Multiple criteria, or outcome having three citations in 1 year or The SAFE program, designed to measures, to assess the four in 2 years. The caseload meet these objectives, included project's impact. averaged 101 a day or 505 a week. these central features: The evaluation was directed toward Most of the defendants were men • P"ppearance for adjudication at two broad issues: The efficiency of (72 percent), white (83 percent), the defendant's discretion, administering the program, and the relatively young (65 percent without having to await a court impacts of the program on those between the ages of 18 and 34), date. involved. Efficiency and impacts with low-to-moderate incomes (88 were assessed for both the percent earned less than $15,000). • Defendant's d rivi ng records adjudication and rehabilitation Voluntary defendants included immediately available by video more women and people with better terminal access to State files driving records. for the adjudicator at the time

the case is heard. 3 Seattle Special Adjudication for Enforcement (SAFE) Project, contract number DOT-HS-343- • Informal "one-on-one" 3-682,1973, Final Report, December 1976. P~rts adjudication processes, where of this section are a verbatim extract from the the defendant and the Final Report. adjudicating magistrate discuss the case, and the magistrate renders a disposition. 10

------~ ----- o Chart 2. SAFE. Evaluation Desl.gn . CT , . ~ . .

, ,~ ,

o

(\••. G .~ .)

1------1------' J...-______2",,=:·..,~ .. --....._-..,...,..;;,.oa .1

Cont. - Control Dff< - Driver h!lprovement~i18Iyst OIP" - Drl-¥er Impr()Vel\i)enU'r.e~r8ni~ It tOOK an average of 62 minutes to direct defendant processing. various lengths of time showed process a SAFE case, excluding any Excluded are enforcement costs similar caseload characteristics at time spent in rehabilitation and some ancillary office the beginning and end of the SAFE programs. The defendant spent management costs. Comparable program, although with marked about 6 minutes with the magistrate costs for formal court trial and bail differences between the first and and 11 minutes with the driver forfeitu re was $40 and $9, second year of operation. improvement analyst (DIA). Half of respectively. The the defendants had to wait less than diagnostic-rehabilitation component Equality in Adjudication an hour for their hearing; 86 of SAFE accounted for 61 percent Notwithstanding different personal percent saw a magistrate within an of the administrative cost. The characteristics, defendants with few hour. The times the DIA spent either addition of costs incurred by the exceptions fare equally in their counseling offenders or diagnosing defendant (fine and time) and the SAFE hearings. Only driving their driving problems did not differ subtraction of savings due to exposure was related to verdicts, substantially. recidivism prevention, produced a with guilty outcomes more common net societal economic cost of Case Dispositions for people who reported that they $17.35 per case. typically drove fewer miles per Eighty-nine percent of the cases Adjudication Efficiency week. Fines levied on offenders were judged guilty, exclusive of appeared superficially to vary with approximately 8.6 percent of the SAFE's effect on the efficiency of their sex, age, education, and cases which were referred to court court operations was that of income. The effects of such for formal trial. Offenders were permitting the courts to maintain a personal characteristics were fined an average of $20, of which manageable docket despite a 26 minimal or nil, however, when the $10 was typically suspended. For percent increase in total court trials. influence of other factors, such as offenders assigned to rehabilitation Except for a significant increase in offense committed and driving and also fined, the amounts the fine-based court revenues, there record, were partialled out suspended were higher. Twenty was no consistent or reliable (controlled). Thus, for example, percent of the defendants were improvement or decrement in court while men were fined more than referred to some form of performance during the SAFE women, men also tended to have rehabilitation; of these, 6,989 (73 program period. A comparison had poorer driving records and to percent) were assigned to Defensive (across quarters) of the proportion have committed more serious Driving Courses, 1,543 (19 percent) of cases heard by the courts which offenses, which carry higher fines. were sent to First Group Interview were not related to traffic and the The only characteristics related to and 668 (8 percent) were referred to number of cases awaiting trial for fines, which could not be explained other Department of Motor Vehicles r'-'~-"-'---"---'----"----'~--'----"---'-~--'------'7/".... -"-- ..... '·'· ....'-l· .. ·---~----.. ---.. ----'· (DMV) programs. DIAs \ Table 1. Summary of SAFE aq{ Outcomes for the recommended driver license Hearlngl16ti~{tie~ ! i ", Three M~~istra1es '. ,/ ! suspensions for less than .3 percent L-_, __ .. ' ...... __ .... ____ ..__ .. _:... ___ .. __'". __ ,_'_____ ._ .. ____... d._~_ .. j c...... _ .. _ ...... -I:.. .. ______.. ______._.. _ .. ~ __• ___ .__ ._J of the defendants. The exception rate on predesignated referrals was approximately 16 percent. [_-._:.~~,:~-~~~~~~~~~:~~_·=:~~~7:~::=l~~2][(~~~~~~~~:~::~~_~~_:J Case Processi n9 Costs I .. --~~:;~. g;·~a~~~-.;~~d. pe~~. ork~~;~'~ay -7.~-::.--..~~·1 f-4~~---lf·.--;~- --1 [-;~-----I Percent of' cases referred to",dc."Iurt •. !) 2.1 1- 10.71 10.8 Based on established volume, it I ;1 ..... " .. I I Percent of cases found guilty •••••. // .• ,87.4 1 86.3 1 88•1 I cost $13.:22 to process a SAFE case, 0... , ... !1 I . Average dollarfin~ per case ••... , II, 19.08 I 20.40 I 21.05 I including only costs associated with .l ...... , A f ft t i' 9 2° 1I 9 92 I 10 28 verage me a er par -suspens on /,'~ .. ., ...... H. I ..... " • I . Minutes spent ~y defendant i~,;SAF;:~ .•.••..••• "~ I 4.. 3.07 ,,\11. 47.87 .50.07 Number of maglstrate-deterf"!lihed/dlrect 'I I ~ ! ' \ referrals to Dlpl ..,." ... ~;: ... .j! ...... '" .. ·1\18 0· t58 \ 84 I I Percent of defendants re.~d~vat!wg: ..... ~ ... '... j. 8.0.' j' . 9.4 I .8.2' l__ ~~r_cen_~~f d~~en~~~~.~L~~'va'L~~~~:,~~r~JL~~·6, 1:~L~~_J r---.--_. ___. ______.___ ,__ . JI----'..,..---:·--.-- .. ------~' --1 1 DIP-Driver Improvement Pr~9~am. "II I 2.SAFE citation. / 0 c 3 Other citation. " j

~_~_.--... ___" ,...... ~ ______, ._=. ' .... __. _____. ___ ,__ ~ ___l.:l.. J

12 by other logical correlates, were the (after partial fine suspensions) was favorably disposed toward the defendants education and income. on the order of only $1. Citation program, though their degree of High school graduates were fined' recidivism rates were equivalent for satisfaction and perceptions of more than people with either less or offenders who saw different convenience did not differ from more education. Except for magistrates. those of court and forfeit offenders earning less than $3,000 defendants. Most SAFE defendants per year, those earning more money Driver Improvement Analyst thought their driving improved after tended to be fined 1E',ss, after fine ConSistency their SAFE experience, due to suspensions were taken into Offenders directed to having learned something new or account. post~adjudication driver more about driving. Sixty~five Magisterial ConSistency improvement diagnosis and percent felt the magistrate was rehabilitation program referral were helpful, and 66 percent thought the SAI=E employed three magistrates at treated essentially the same by each DIA was useful. Eighty percent of any given time. What ultimately of the three Driver Improvement those who attended rehabilitation happened to the defendant Analysts in cases where the initial programs considered those generally did not depend on which referral (to the DIA) was at the programs worthwhile. Defendants magistrate heard his case (see discretion of the magistrate, and generally reacted well to Table 1). Magistrates spent different DIAs had totally free choice of their components of the adjudication amounts of time with defendants, actions (see Table 2). Although system, particularly rehabilitation. differed in the average number of between~analyst variance was cases they heard in a workday, and Attitude surveys of other population minimal, strong preferences for groups showed that SAFE was most differed in their referral patterns certain types of available referral (that is referrals to court and to favorably received by the public and actions were noted. personnel of the host court. There rehabilitation). They were consistent in their verdicts, however, with each were some ambiguities between the Attitudes toward the SAFE program objectives and (a) one finding approximately 89 Program percent gUilty. Although magistrates attorneys' preferences for bail forfeiture and (b) the "harder~linet) differed significantly in their fines, Defendants who experienced the the magnitude of the difference SAFE process were generally viewpoint of police officers toward sentencing traffic offenders. -----'--.' ,,..-~,,,,. ~- ,~ -" '-~""'-71---"'~' -~" ~ ._.,,- -~~'--~--~~-~'-'-.-'----'-.---' ·-'-·~-l. J-----.- .--~""".-.--~'" -.' ,~~~-,~-,,,,,- -.- - _.> ~ - ...... >~-"~~' Effectiveness of the SAFE I Table,!2 •....::Pe rcentage of Different Actions Applied by the Driver \ Adjudication Process 1 Improvement Analysts .. ~=::::c.c'.::.:;;;:o=:·:·7(=::~C:::::::·::-"::'':::.·''''o::::::,'.. ::::=:.~'_:C';:;;:-::;::C:c:::-~I-r:-:::·:~::,···,,~:·cc::::o:::::::=c;:-":;:::::::·::'~::::f:::'~:::::C:;-::::::::::::=--'-::-'i~~::::="j An important feature of the SAFE program was the use of a research til. fl d d )' DriVer Improvement Analysts 1 :I A c;,.on ~~ommen e :\ (1) (2) (3): design permitting the magistrate ~:.""-;::':;7:::.:-l=:':·:""·'C:-·":::::=;~·-~·~·::::::::::::·7'::::::::::;::-' ':-::::·"·:·i r-:::::-::::::::::c:;:::·::···;,cc:·:::::!~-:::·=::-:::::-:::::::'-='::·l r-·:::c::;·:::-=::c::::.::::::::::::::::j hearing system to be compared with I Ll,cense suspension 1). 2.4 .:\ . 2.6 II 2.1 i traditional court trial procedure in its effect on the subsequent driving ~.7Gllrehabilit81iO. n i!~6.8 J.'j' 25.8 28.5 t ! .. Ii records of the defendants. All the 'I. plP2 rehabilltatio. n :! 18 .• 0 i 12.6 If.' 16.9 \ PL3 drivers used in this portion of the . II rehabilitation 11 1.8 II . 2.1 II i 1.2 I study were randomly assigned to one of three processes; bail ~:::;::::i:~~~:=::~::::;.:::~;:::::::::.-.~c::::~~.::~=:::,,:=,,~::;JL::::::~:~~:;~c::JL:::~~~~~:;=::~~~~~::::::::::::,,~::·i forfeiture, magistrate hearing, or i . 1.flrst Group Intervif,lw-.l DMV driver Improvement program desIgnated primarily for overly I \ ' aggressive drivers. . court trial. In this way, differences t /1 2 Driver Improvement Program-aloeal term for the Defenslva Drivf,lf COUrse (DOC). I # 3 programmed Learning-a modified version of DOC employing tape players and cassettes for I f self-lnstructfon." (j UL ... __ ._~._ ... _._'~ _____ ...... ~ __·_ ...... -.. ------.-.-.. - ..... ------.-... -.--.-.. ~ ... --.. -.--~.-.- ... ---.~-.-~---.-.,----,

13 between drivers (in age, sex, there was no difference between the magistrates did not do as well socioeconomic status, previous bail forfeiture and magistrate as those predesignated at random record, etc.) which had often made hearings (SAFE) as regards the for this treatment. This may indicate comparisons between various accident delay measure. These that the magistrates required the alternative court programs results suggest that the increased drivers with the worst records to impossible, were eliminated as efficiency and savings associated take DOC. On the other hand, the sources of bias in the SAFE study. A with magistrate hearings and bail drivers referred to the DOC by the well-controlled study of the forfeiture can be achieved without a DIA counselors generally did better effectiveness of the magistrate loss in the effectiveness of the than the randomly assigned drivers. hearing in comparison to the court process for reducing accidents. This may indicate that they sent the trial was important because, while drivers with better records to DOC The use of the random assignment the magistrate system proposedly and used the other sanctions or procedures also provided a good improves efficiency and reduces treatments for the drivers with a test of the relative effectiveness of costs, the procedure should be at poorer driving prognosis. Until the the four rehabilitation programs. least as effective as the traditional effectiveness of magistrate or Driver (The results of this analysis will be system in influencing the Analyst referrals to treatment can be presented in NHTSA reports on subsequent driving behavior of tested with appropriate controls, it driver education.) traffic offenders. cannot be determined whether Although most of the defendants magistrates improve the impact of The three basic alternatives bail processed by the SAFE were an otherwise effective rehabilitation forfeit, magistrate hearings, and "predesignated" for one or another program by selecting the individuals court trials, were compared type of course on a random basis to assigned to it-an important separately from the influence of permit the program's evaluation, question since fine forfeiture rehabilitation procedures by limiting some were left unassigned so that appears to be almost as effective as the study to those judged not guiity the magistrates and the DIA the magistrate hearings. If a driver or who received fines but were not counselors might make referrals to education program can be added to assigned to a school. The results treatment. It was not possible to this simpler, less expensive indicated that there were no evaluate the effectiveness of these forfeiture procedure without differences in the proportion of referrals because appropriate significant loss in effectiveness each group who were subsequently control groups were not available. relative to magistrate referred, then involved in accidents. The drivers The individuals referred to the it may be possible to process most who received either a magistrate Defensive Driving Course (DOC) by cases without a hearing. hearing or a court trial had fewer subsequent traffic offenses than did those who were allowed to forefeit bail (see Table 3). The results indicated, therefore, that those who received a magistrate hearing did at least as well as those who were treated in the traditional way. In fact, there was some evidence that the magistrate hearing produced better results. Those offenders who had had such a hearing delayed longer in committing either a traffic offense or being involved in an accident than did individuals who had had a court trial (see Table 4). It should be noted, however, that

14 Rhode Island SAFE

a'

0, " 4:~A ~:i;J~

~

",0

," Qo

~,.

".'.' The Special Adjudication for • To reduce the elapsed time Hearing Officer Staff and Enforcement (SAFE)4 demonstration from the violation to the final Case Disposition project in Rhode Island is operated imposition of sanctions. by hearing officers of the The AAD hearing section is • To provide consistent case Administrative Adjudication Division composed of three full-time dispositions throughout the (AAD) of the State Department of commissioners and one part-time Transportation. On July 1, 1975, a elements of the adjudication commissioner and security and State law became effective in Rhode system. clerical personnel. The Island which decriminalized most Case Processing commissioners sit at various sites traffic offenses and established the around the State to adjudicate AAD to adjudicate these cases. During its first year of operation violations requiring the driver to SAFE began on the same date. AAD disposed of approximately appear personally. During the first These results are based on the first 65,000 traffic summonses, with year of operation, 14,982 summons year's experience of a 2-year 49,626 of these having been paid by containing 16,254 violations were operational period. The project's mail and the remainder adjudicated disposed of. This was an increase of objectives are the following: at hearings. The pay-by-mail some 70 percent in the number of summonses generated fines in the personal b:~t.'earances required, • To remove the bulk of the amount of $1,089,682 of which compared to the 12 months prior to annual traffic caseload from $113,761 came from follow-up AAD. the district courts permitting procedures implemented by the the reduction in backlog of project. Approximately 56 percent of the other types of cases and hearings were required because the assignment to the district The volume of summonses paid by motorists were not eligible to pay by courts of certain functions mail declined by approximately 14 mail, while 40 percent involved previously handled by the percent compared to the 12 months offenses that could not be paid by superior courts. prior to the project. AAD's ability to mail. Less than 2 percent of the enforce the condition that a hearings were of people eligible to • To implement a reliable system motorist can pay only one summons pay by mail but wishing to contest that permits the nonchronic by mail in a 12-month period was the case or to admit culpability with offender to pay a fine by mail in the responsible factor. explanation. minor traffic violations or, if desired, to contest the facts or Analysis of the violations paid by Five percent of the AAD hearings explain the circumstances at mail revealed that speeding charges involved contested cases requiring an administrative hearing. account for 78 percent of all the appearance of the issuing summonses. Seven of 51 violations officer. This figure contrasts with • To identify the chronic offender payable by mail (speeding, the 9 percent contested rate in the and require him to appear at an obedience to devices, conditions last year of court jurisdiction over administrative hearing to requiring reduced speed, obedience the relevant traffic violations. adjudicate his offense. to stop and yield signs, operating left of center and overtaking where The sustained rate in contested • To make accurate and cases was 54 percent and 85 up-to-date driver histories prohibited) account for 94 percent of the pay-by-mail volume. percent in uncontested cases. Both available at hearings (after rates are significantly higher than judgment) so that sanctions Of persons paying summonses by those in the courts in the year can be applied based 0n the mail 73 percent were State before AAD. (Table 5). facts of the case and on the residents. Drivers under age 25 driving history. were overrepresented in 4 Rhode Island SAFE Project, contract number DOT-HS-4·00956CA, Annual Report, July • To require individuals who summonses paid, in comparison to 1975·June 1976. Parts of this section are a represent a possible traffic their numbers in the licensed driver verbatim extract from the Annual Report. safety hazard to complete a population. driver retraining school as an At the end of June 1976, 3,742 alternative or adjunct to the persons who received summonses sanctions imposed. and were eligible to pay by mail, had not responded. They had their driver licenses or rights to operate in the State suspended.

16 Variations existed in the sustained Defendant Characteristics There was no unanimity of opinion, rates of various violations and and Attitudes however, about when that time among the hearing sites. Also would be. certain violations (those related to Approximately 86 percent of the an accident) were more likely to be persons adjudicated at hearings Appeals and Scofflaws were males, a higher rate than the contested. Appeals of hearings are taken first 78 percent of males who paid to an AAD appeal board and then to Fines for similar violations were summonses by mail. The reasons court. During the first year, 35 found to have been levied with a are probably the greater likelihood appeals were filed, representing a high degree of consistency among that males are ineligible to pay by rate of about '13 percent of all the hearing sites. The average fine mail and to be issued summonses contested hearings where the in uncontested cases was higher for offenses that require a hearing. charges were sustained. To date, under AAD than the courts; the Differences were found in the two appeals have continued into the reverse was true in contested cases. sustained rates for males and court system. In 22 percent of the cases disposed females charged with like violations. at hearings referrals to driver The sustained rates for males and The noncompliance rate (failure to retraining were made. Variations in females also differed among the pay by mail or appear at a hearing) referral rate occurred among the hearinQ sites. was found to be higher for out-of-State residents than among hearing sites. These differences Young drivers were overrepresented those holding Rhode Island related to variations in driver history among those disposed at hearings licenses. A recent policy of and residence, and to policy on compared to the licensed driver referral as an alternative to fines. adjudicating through the mail population and to those who paid out-of-State residents who do not Rhode Island residents made up 93 summonses by mail. Significant appear at hearings has had a percent of those disposed at differences related to age were compliance rate of 50 percent. hearings, a significantly higher found in the likelihood of having proportion than the 73 percent uncontested charges sustained-older drivers were more figure for summonses paid by mail. This difference was occasioned by likely to have charges dismissed. Drivers who contested cases were Rhode Island residents being more likely to be ineligible to pay by mail found to be somewhat older thall (that is, have a prior violation) and those who did not contest. to be more likely to receive a Ninety-three percent of motorists summonS for an offense that cannot leaving hearings sites said they had be paid by mail. No differences were been treated fairly. Approximately found in the sustained rates as a 41 percent said there could have function of residence. been a better time for the hearing.

Table\~.-Sustalned Rates in Contestee! and Uncontested ViQ,'ations

Contested violatioils Uncontested violations Guilty or Guilty or Sustained Other SUstained Other

AAD 306 262 8,909 1,607 Court 310 " 585 4,454 1 q·:A69

17 Data Systems and Costs Limited data make cost cases and permitted the courts to comparisons with the district court take on new functions. Thus AAD The AAD data system has been disposition of traffic cases difficult. helped alleviate court caseload and implemented at the State's central At a gross level, the average court permitted progress to be made to a data processing installation. cost of disposing of a case restructuring of the court system. Consisting of 26 functional regardless of type was at least subsystems made up of 48 AAD also provided savings to the $19.56. The AAD hearing cost of police departments through the programs, the data system supports $16.82 is therefore cost competitive. the major activities of AAD. These reduced need for police include summons and fine Recidivism prosecutors at arraignment of traffic accou nti ng and control, cases; officers spending less time at determination of eligibility to pay by Because of the relatively short contested hearings than at mail, hearing scheduling, period of operation and some contested cou rt cases; redu ced generation of suspension notices, problems associated with the data clerical tasks owing to the and the production of various base, it seems premature to discuss elimination of warrants in most reports. The bas,\~s of the system are recidivism at this point. An traffic cases and the elimination of driver-based files of violation, encouraging finding was that the the capias as the follow-up to accident, suspension, and driver average elapsed time between defaulted court appearances. retraining history. offenses among those who went to more than one hearing was 105 The typical monthly charge for data days compared with 92 days for processing was $8,200 of which multiple violations requiring court about 62 percent came from appearances in the year before the computer time and the remainder project. from keypunching. The cost per disposed summons amounts to The median time from issuance of $1.53. the summons to hearing disposition was approximately 45 days in Operational costs during the first uncontested cases and over 90 days year amounted to $369,814 with the in contested cases. The 45-day hearing process the major cost figure is substantially higher than element. The unit cost of disposing the less than 30 day median for the a summons paid by mail is courts in uncontested cases estimated to be $2.78, while the unit because of the initiation of the AAD cost of a hearing disposition is scheduling system. No data are $16.82. available on the time to court disposition of contested cases. Case Backlog and Enforcement Costs AAD had a m~jor impact on the I court system. Removal of most traffic cases t,:;Im the court's jurisdiction brought about a 17 I percent reduction in the backlog of

18 State Driver­ Licensing­ Hearing Authority

.p

l!1

,,"L"" '"' '

o

o \ o

'l7 . "

(3 " o BackgroundS differences in interpretation Authority to Withdraw Drivers affected numerous court decisions Licenses All 50 States enacted driver in upholding or denying various licens'lng laws and established individual rights in the license State legislatures have authorized agencies to administer those laws. withdrawal process. In 1970, driver licensing agencies to Driver licensing agencies considering the dependency of withdraw licenses for several historically Issued licenses to Americans on their driver licenses, different reasons. For example, as a qualified drivers, collected licensing the Supreme Court, in Bell v. deterrent to violating traffic laws, fees, and rnalntalned information on Burson,6 went beyond the basic the suspension of the driver license those licensed to drive. At first, question of whether a license is a is used as a sanction against those these agencies were primarily right or a privilege. The Court convicted by the courts of serious concerned with fee collection and determined that before a State or repeated traffic violations. driver identification. With the advent could withdraw a driver's license, License withdrawals also serve as of traffic safety programs, the the State must afford the individual an administrative sanction to agencies took on new certain due process rights. This enforce other statutes, such as laws responsibilities to identify problem decision recognized the right of the requiring drivers to take alcohol drivers, to conduct driver control individual to request a hearing, with tests when requested by and improvement programs, and to the State, on the reasons for a enforcement officials, or laws withdraw licenses from those proposed license withdrawal. requiring drivers to be financially deemed no longer qualified to drive. responsible for liabilities as a result Agency actions to withdraw driver Although, the Supreme Court ruled of their involvement in automobile licenses led many courts to direct that hearings are required in license accidents. Licenses may be / that certain individual rights must withdrawal actions, in Bell v. suspended for a specific period of be afforded to drivers before their Burson it did not specify how these time, or revoked indefinitely, licenses may be suspended or hearings are to be conducted or depending upon the reasons for the revoked. Some courts regarded the what aspects of due process are action. The term "license driver license, once issued, as a necessary in a license withdrawa! withdrawal" is used in the report to right in itself, although other courts proceeding. Although many States refer to both actions. still considered it a privilege have implemented administrative extended by the State. These procedures to guarantee due 5 State Driver licensing Agency Hearing Authority. process rights, some of which contract number DOT-HS-5-01252. Arthur Young provide for formal hearings, many and Company, Final Report, April 1977. others have not done so. Part of the problem is that lower courts have 6 Bell v. Burson. 402 U.S. 535 (1971), differed in their interpretations as to which license withdrawal procedures are necessary to guarantee individuals rights. For these reasons, research was undertaken to (1), provide guidelines as to the due process rights that must be afforded in license withdrawal proceedings , and, (2), identify the extent to which State driver licensing agencies have adopted adequate procedures.

20

• License Withdrawal Proc:ess In other States, the driver is told to Using this definition of a hearing, come in for an interview before a Professor Force determined when, Driver licensing agencies have driver improvement officer or and in what cases, such a hearing is developed various methods for similar Official. Driver improvement required to satisfy due process In a taking action against drivers whose officers are the State officials, license withdrawal proceeding. licenses may have to be withdrawn. involved in the traffic safety Generally, he believes a hearing is Once an .agency determines that programs in the State, who may required when there are questions license withdrawal proceedings conduct driver improvement as to the factual basis for the State's should be initiated against an sessions, interview problem drivers, action to withdraw the driver's individual, a notice is sent to that or identify those who should attend license. Moreover, Professor Force driver to inform him of this action, certain driver improvement clinics. asserted that even when the factual the reasons that his license may be Interviews before a driver basis for withdrawal is not being w~thdrawn, and what the next steps, improvement officer may be very contested, additional factors (such i1 any, are in these proceedings. At informal, and sometimes as the driver's attitude or need for this point in many States, a driver procedures fail to recognize certain his license) may enter into the may request a hearing for several basic due process rights. agency's decision as to whether or reasons: He may want further not to withdraw the license. Some explanation of why his license is The reasons for the license lIopportunity to be heard" should being withdrawn; he may contest withdrawal in some States be extended to the driver before this the facts upon which the agency determines that the driver is given decision is made. Thus, Professor has begun the license withdrawal no opportunity for a hearing until Force defined a new area, a middle action; or he may want to tell the after the withdrawal takes effect. ground between -the absolutes of State how dependent he is on his To summarize, drivers are not requiring or not requiring a hearing, license. always afforded an opportunity for a when an informal interview, for example, would be appropriate In License Withdrawal Hearing hearing as part of a license withdrawal proceeding. There is providing an opportunity to be Procedures great variation in the types of heard. States follow different procedures hearings provided and in the due in responding to requests for process procedures incorporated hearings from drivers subject to into the license withdrawal license withdrawal actions. proceedings and the hearings. In some States a formal hearing is "Trial Type" Hearing vs. et~heduled before a hearing officer. Interview Thl' driver may present his case in pers~'\n, sometimes with the What some States refer to as a assistance of an attorney. The "hearing" is only an "interview" in hearing officer then determines other States, some of which whether the driver will be allowed to conduct formal hearings in addition keep his license and, if so, under to driver improvement interviews. what conditions. Professor Force, Tulane University School of Law, distinguished a "trial type" hearing-one providing for the submission and rebuttal of evidence before an impartial tribunal-from other proceedings such as interviews. He believes a "trial type" hearing was the type contemplated by the Supreme Court in Bell v. Burson.

; .

21 To determine what constitutes an Findings There was also a general lack of adequate hearing, Professor Force notification to the driver of the reviewed case law for those specific The findings of the national survey reasons for the final decision. With procedures that may be appropriate on license withdrawal proceedings respect to the actual conduct of the for driver license withdrawal indicate that great variations exist hearings, there were many minor actions. For example, he reviewed among States in meeting a number variances from the criteria the notice requirements which of due process related requirements established by Professor Force. Yet would insure that the opportunity (see Tables 6, 7, and 8). The survey in general, States appear to be for a hearing be extended to a revealed that most States provide a providing an adequate hearing that driver and that the driver be aware hearing as required for when an meets due process requirements of his full rights. Specific opportunity for a hearing must be (Table 8). procedures applicable to the extended; moreover, most States conduct of the hearing were provide opportunities to be heard in Lastly, with few exceptions the analyzed. It appears that drivers cases deemed appropriate. Of great States are using personnel qualified must be allowed to bring an concern was the fact that several to conduct the hearings as attorney to the hearing, to present inadequacies were cited in how compared to minimum due process evidence on their behalf, and to drivers are notified that their requirements. Although these crossexamine those testifying licenses may be withdrawn. They personnel meet minimum due against them. Additionally, it may be were not sufficiently informed of process qualifications, those ) necessary that States notify drivers either the opportunity for a hearing responsible for conducting hearings of the final decision as a result of or of their rights in the license generally lack training. as to the due the hearing, and also of the reason withdrawal proceeding (Table 6). process rights and procedural for taking that action. Also, many jurisdictions do not requirements. Also most hearing provide a hearing prior to license officers have other duties (Tables 9 f' With respect to who conducts the action (Table 7). and 10). hearings, Professor Force found r ---- ... -'------.------,.-... --.-----.-,,- ... --.------.... -----.... -.--.... --...... ---- : few limitations as to who may be assigned to this function in a driver I Table 6.-Respon~es to Questions on Contents of Hearing Notice ~ 1 licensing agency. The hearing I ' officer need not be an attorney. No r-:::."'c:==·--~'-=-===::::=::.-::::=-:::.:::~==--='.::-:::--==.=:::=-lF-==--:.::::;-;::=::;:;::·1'---==:::'::" conflict with due process appears to exist when the same individual .. (.' ___ serves as both a hearing officer and I~~==c_~::~.~~~-::.::.~_ _==~=~~"" ~~L(·~~~"e~:·~~. J a driver improvement analyst. 1 b~rr;:Il~~~,,~I:::o~f ~~:~~;;;·~~~-·-~·~~~~--111 ® 4~-- 1-1--y---4----·~-l · ., in Jeo. pardy ••.••••.•• 'E~:' . P,. ••• • •••••• • .pt,lO 6 I 5 I A Statement of Where Burden i Li~:~r~:~~~~~·th~tM~Y· .... ··;'·?··...... 14 31 1 c. ~ A!I~~';:~d d~ N~~~pp~~;~~~~"'''''''''' I 31 12 I· 8 w~~;:~~rG'~t' i~f~;~~ti~~ ·O~· ...... I 29 13: 9

Hearing Procedures...... \ "14 2~", 8 C'

8 l_S~~~~~~O~ ~~~~~ • ~~.~:~~~.~:~ :~ :.J _1; .j~~;J L._ __-,-,

i ! 22 j Beyond the requirements of due r-"- Tabl~-;::~~~~erc Of-~~~~~~-;:~cor~~'~g o~~nYlng ~~vor ~;;;~---'-"] prooess additional measures may

H.earlng by lype of A~'itlt)n ~q 0 I. be used to judge whether adequate [==-:======~r::·~C"'-"==- N~:'~~-:;:-;;::='::=====I hearings are being conducted. Obviously, there are many traffic safety implications in this overall ===--==-==-- Prior t;--AfI.;-~:" •• ,lng I~;;::" .. l process, because the original [ __ ~ ____~ctl?_n __JbJL AC~J~'.",d~~_•. P~~~_J reason for withdrawing driver licenses was to remove those who - ~~~~,a~~~:ry ~:=_~~ 11-~ -:- --:- ~~-- may pose a safety risk to other ..:rll[ drivers and passengers from our D!fJcretlonary ...... '" 23 17 1 10 highways. Thus, it is helpful to Suspension: review the conduct of hearings with L\ Mandatory .. .. • ...... ' 17 13 8 respect to whether they meet, or Dlsoretionary ••••••••. 33 :0 4 have a role in meeting, the traffic

Restriction: " i) safety objectives of a particular Mandatory •• , •••.•••• 11 14 9 17 driver licensing agency. Should the e' • • • •• 13 3 Dlsoretionary .~ r u 20 15 " hearings be used as a method to Ravocatlom identify drivers for certain driver

[',' 0 • Mandatory •..•.•••••• 3 0 13 18 7 control sanctions? Many situations DiscretionarY •••••••• 26 12 1 12 arise where the hearing officer Cancellation: !,., determines that the individual's Mandatory...•.•.•••••• 12 13 j 10 16 license should not be withdrawn. Disorationary •••••••. 16 1_15 ___ .. __~ .. __" J ' 11 / Yet other sanctions may very well ~~.---"------.. ---~ ~ be appropriate, such as attendance at a driver improvement school, an occupational license, or probation. The understanding of these factors by a hearing officer depends upon his having an integral role in the State's driver safety program.

23 Tabr~9.-Additional Duties of Hearing Table 10.--States,Havlng Formal Training in Hearing , C Officers " Proce'dur,~s, Driver Improvement~ and Traff(c Safety

, '''':' ,'0.: , .. ,' ",:=,. ". 1'--' ,,,.. .:,cc.".;o·:·,:"",,,,":,,,-:.~cO·'cco-c..' ",C":", ... , "

D 1\ 1\

V:"="';~::=::::C::::'::':'::"-::llr:=o:::C;;;:;;:1 Alabama +... _...... - Alabama .. .. • .lasks \ I I AIMIt.. \ I H~ri2:ona Ii _ J. - - .... - I Al'i2'bM 11 "Arkansas o!l - ..... - - -'~ - I Arkansas If • • • • L_Californra f "" ...... - - + I.c II • J.I. i -COIOrgdo i I ICnlbradn i i .. \\ . , .. • Connecticut Ii - ".. _ - ..... + !I ,..' •• nl"l II ..

• 1 L_.;"FI~o~rld~a;-_~I+-1 _,;:;;•• _+...... :+l:-~·I -IJ'.L...:-;-'-I---:-"-'-."r-;+,---!--;:--~_-+I7"-i_~F:=lor",,:,-lde_ '''~~"r: t,~~··O!l·"\\'-:'\t-""""""''''''''-' /-_..11-'--!-_JL-"+-_.'1<-+-_"''"--..,..., r Georgia I i ~ r:-'- """ - + " - i I GAnrni.. ,e. • .. • • .. I HaWaii II + .. _.. +.. .. I' HawaII )( ,c. 0 I I loaho I _ .... - + + 'I IrI"hn I !' 1IIII1OIs .. " .. - - - .. - + II IIlInnl" i I • IndIana j I ...,.,...._+~ _ _+I+--+_~_t-~-t--I__--_iJ_;_( __-:I'-'n"'"dl""'-'alna"'--_+: 'm---'.'--f-,.-.: •...,,,r__--+---'-".'--t----+-----l 1-~lo~w~a~ ___ -~j+I __,~~~~+-H~._+- ..----t_---~ .. -_+-----_+lrl----~lllo~wa~ ____~I;_" ____~----_r-- ___+--~.~------t-----~ Kansas II ~ - Ii- + _... ~ II Kansas Ii I Kentucky , I - + .. + ~ + + Ii Kentuckv ;t • ., . • • • i ~~L7co~u~ls~ia~n~a'--...~Jr!----~c----_r,--_+----_t----_+----I_------_ii_;_I----~.L~"O~LU~lsllia~na~ __~ilr__"~.~+---~ • ...",r_----+_--~.~r_----,~~.~ MaiM Ii 1\ _Maine II '. ..0 " ~arx'and . II .. ! - 1.. - - - + II Marvland Ii. • ! ' • k .' Ma9sachusetts 1i - /( + I... - - + + ! f II.. • , • j Michigan 0, II

.North Carolina II - ... -Ii... '" + .. i I North Carolina II .' •• i Nortn [JaKota )~! I _ _ ~,... _ + - I Nortn aKota i I • chn 11 '~"'I '"I Ohio Ii OKlahoma II • + + ,f. !! Oklahoma 1\ • uregon II - .. -- ... - ... II reQon I ! • I"ennsy van a \ I ,~Jf' ~~ ... _" c... .. _ ... II t'tlnnsYlvanla I • '.• • Hnoda sIaM I - .:t< - _ _... - II Rhode Island 1\ .§outh garollna II + _ _ '''' '+1 + - i I South Carolina II • • • • • • SOUth Dakota II + + :.. _ _ _ - Il South Dakota 'I • • I Tennessee II - 4- + _ ~ + + II Tennessee j i • c_ .. .. ; exes! 0 i I ,Texas I r

I vv8snlngton J I II Wasnlngton i I • '~i;jI ! I West Virginia 11. - '1-; - - + - - II WElsIVlrglnra, I lov.vv[sconsn I + + - _ - _, ,I wlseonsn II • .. I wyoming II - - - - _.. ... II Wyoming Ii • • • •

+ ""YES 0 --NO "" NOT AVAILABLE

• '" SPECIAL EXAMS " .'

'" ... ON OOPAS10N ; D ... ,. PAFlNriROFESSIONAL .~ ..... ADMINIS!t'RATIVE ONLY

24 ,., ~., ~. ,". . ;, ,to,.",'.,,: Receptivity of Jurisdictions to itl

",;)~ Administrative '" "f', Adjudication

o

(( .

D

G

f!

,) ')

,0 ,'~' ".'

C

I I II /J '0 1 I

"i~

Y; , , "l:·',

In the March 1977 Supplement to Department of Motor Vehicles could be impartial especially in the the 1976 Report on Administrative reviewed the study and submitted summary trial situation where they Adjudication of Traffic Infractions, comments to the governor and would serve both as prosecutor and brief descriptions of advances made legislature. Although the advisory judge. The groups contended that in traffic law adjudication were committee made a preliminary the hearing officers would have an presented. These covered the States finding of feasibility, it recognized "effiCiency/safety" bias. The of California, Kentucky, Maine, that certain questions relating to hearing officer appointment Michigan, Oregon, and Washington. feasibility remained and had to be provision required that they "have Some additional or supplementary resolved through the regular legal training at least in the areas of reports are provided in the legislative process. A minority evidence, criminal law, following paragraphs. report submitted by the traffic administrative law, and commissioner of the Oakland­ constitutional law, in addition to California Piedmont Municipal Court stated education and experience in traffic The California Assembly is at that the legal training of an attorney safety as established by the State present considering a second was more appropriate for a Personnel Board." Under this legislative proposaJ7 that allows for hearing officer than that of a driver legislation, unlike the first legislative the processing, adjudication, and improvement analyst because of its proposal, infractions would remain disposition of traffic infractions by adjudicatory nature. It was also a crime or public offense with administrative adjudication hearing pointed out that California had concurrent jurisdiction within the officers in a pilot project based in eliminated lay judges and the use of courts. The burden of proof of the three counties. This legislation, like non lawyer hearing oJ'ficers would infraction was changed from the the first legislation considered by be a return to that situation. The civil one of clear and convincing the California Senate, is based on a project will be conducted for 5V2 evidence back to the crimina! major feasibility study requested by years and be independently burden of beyond a reasonable Senate Concurrent Resolution 40 evaluated in terms of cost, service doubt. At the committee's and conducted by the Department to the public, improvement of driver suggestion, this second legislative of Motor Vehicles, in cooperation behavior, and reduction of proposal was withdrawn to make with the Judicial Council and in accidents. Also the California whatever changes are necessary to consultation with the League of Judicial Council will evaluate the answer this criticism. California Cities and the County impact of administrative Supervisors Association of adjudication on the judicial system Washington during the pilot project. California. An advisory committee 8 chaired by the Director of the A bill before the Washington State Two major provisions of the legislature designates minor legislation would (1) allow for the violations of traffic laws as traffic appointment of non lawyer hearing infractions and creates a modified officers "attached to, but judicial adjudication system. The independent" from the department proposed adjudication system of motor vehicles, and (2) summary would permit an offender to request hearings without the presence of a formal or contested hearing to the citing law enforcement official. which he could subpoena witnesses These provisions were criticized by or an informal hearing to explain representatives of the California mitigating circumstances. State Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the 7 California Senate Bill No. SB 1949, introduced in American Trial Lawyers' Association April 1976, was referred to an interim study which became the basis for compromise Assembly Bill at an Assembly judiciary committee No. AB 1068. hearing on May 9, 1977, in Sacramento. They questioned 8 Washington Senate Bill No. SB 2293,1977. whether these hearing officers

26 ~------...... ~.

Denver, Colorado District of Columbia Virginia A study funded by the Colorado The District of Columbia A new law,10 approved March 31, Division of Highway Safety with Department of Transportation is 1977 designates certain traffic concurrence and cooperation from seeking District Council approval of offenses as traffic infractions. the Denver County Court was ~ broad-based program of Improved Traffic infractions are violations of initiated to develop Parking and Traffic Enforcement.9 public order and are not deemed recommendations for a modified The problems the program Is criminal in nature. The new law system of adjudication for routine designed to alleviate are frequent provides for the establishment of a offtlmses. The final study report was incidents of illegal parking and uniform fine schedule applicable prep"red by the University of its adverse effect on safe throughout the State. A maximum Denver College of Law and Denver and rapid traffic movement; an fi ne of $100 is set. District courts Research Institute. The report, titled unmanageable volume of unpaid are empowered to hear traffic ''Traffic Adjudication in Denver, parking tickets; and the high cost infraction cases without jury and to Colorado," was submitted as phase a.nd inefficiency of processing suspend the operator's license for I of a three-phase study. Phase II parking and non-hazardous moving failure to pay fine and costs or will be a pilot demonstration of the violations in overcrowded criminal failure to appear. adjudication model which will proceedings. The program provide experience as to process proposes decriminalizing parking 9 "Improved. Parking and Traffic Enforcement in the and procedures prior to initiation of District of Columbia" (Washington: Metropolitan and minor traffic violations; Pollee Department, Office of the Corporation phase III, the institution of the establishing efficient administrative Counsel, and D.C, Department of Transportation, adjudication model, city or hearings in place of formal trial April, 1977). countywide. proceedings; using a civilian, non police, ticket-writing cadre to 10 Virginia State Laws, 1977 chap, 585, complement police enforcement; denying vehicle registration renewal to motorists who fail to respond to ticketing or to appear for adjudication; and the expanding use of driver rehabilitation for habitual offenders through individual or group counseling or structured attendance at a driver improvement school.

27 .I