DOCSLIB.ORG

Presentation Slides

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Presentation Slides 7/15/2021 The Implications of High-Risk Impaired Drivers: Using Assessment & Supervision to Reduce Recidivism. Judge Neil Axel, James Eberspacher & Mark Stodola July 15, 2021 1 Session Objectives • Alcohol technology countermeasures and research- based practices to reduce the possibility of re- offense by high risk impaired drivers • How the Impaired Driver Assessment can impact supervision strategies • How DUI Courts can effectively reduce recidivism for high risk impaired drivers • Research-based supervision strategies that are effective in the supervision of DWI offenders • Evidence-based resources to increase effectiveness in the supervision of high risk impaired drivers 2 1 7/15/2021 ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED DRIVING 3 3 Drunk Driving by the Numbers… • In 2019, there were over one million drivers arrested for DUI. • An alcohol-impaired driving fatality occurs every 48 minutes. • In 2019, there were 10,142 alcohol-related traffic fatalities. • 68% were in crashes where one driver had a BAC of .15> • In 2018, the most frequently recorded BAC among drinking drivers in fatal crashes was .16 • 111 million drunk driving episodes occurred in 2018. 4 2 7/15/2021 5 7 Alcohol-Impaired-Driving Fatalities as a Percentage of Total Fatalities, by State, 2019 33% 19% (WA) 36% (VT) 32% 41% (ME) (MT) (ND) 34% 24% (OR) (MN) 30% 28% 40% (NH) (ID) 27% 32% 33% (MA) (SD) (WI) (NY) 25% 26% 44% (RI) (WY) 30% (MI) 24% 28% (PA) 38% (CT) 30% (IA) 23% (NJ) (NV) (NE) 31% 26% 30% 16% (OH) 24% (DE) (UT) 27% (IL) (IN) 22% 26% 28% 32% (MD) (CO) 22% 27% (WV) (CA) 20% (VA (KS) (MO) 26% (DC) (KY) ) 24% (NC) 24% 26% (TN) 27% 31% (AZ) (OK) 25% 28% (NM) (AR) (SC) 26% 30% 24% (AL) (GA) 30% (MS) 37% (LA) (TX) 33% (AK) 25% (FL) < 28% 34% (HI) 28% –34% > 34% 28% (PR) 6 3 7/15/2021 Oregon DUI Arrests Alcohol-Impaired 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Driving Fatalities (BAC=.08+)* 9,019 14,282 13,273 13,707 12,446 7 Oregon DUI Fatalities 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Alcohol-Impaired Driving Fatalities (BAC=.08+)* 154 152 144 157 167 (35%) (31%) (33%) (31%) (34%) 8 4 7/15/2021 Fatalities in Crashes Involving an Alcohol-Impaired Driver (BAC = .08+) by County for 2019 9 4,300,000 individuals under community supervision in 2018 15% of this probation population have been convicted of DUIs 8% of the probation population have been convicted of multiple DUIs Approximately 2/3 of individuals under community supervision are drug or alcohol-involved 10 5 7/15/2021 Traditional impaired driving enforcement • DUI is the ONLY crime where the investigation stops after obtaining a minimum amount of evidence. • Current protocols prevent drug testing once a suspect registers an illegal BAC. • Implications: » Hinders the ability to measure the true magnitude of the drug-impaired driving problem. » Many DUI arrests are inaccurately attributed to alcohol alone. 11 With impaired drivers, don’t assume! The drunk driver before you could actually be a polysubstance user. 12 6 7/15/2021 Good News!!! Two Thirds of DWI Offenders self correct! 13 13 Unique challenges when supervising the 1/3… 14 14 7 7/15/2021 “I only had 2 beers…” “You don’t have to worry about me, I’m not a criminal…” Repeat, high-BAC DUI offender: “I’ve never been drunk in my life…” 15 15 Identifying those most at-risk 16 8 7/15/2021 Who is most likely to recidivate? 17 17 IMPAIRED DRIVERS: NOT THE USUAL SUSPECTS 18 18 9 7/15/2021 • Predominantly male (70-80%) • Between the ages of 20-45; majority between ages 20-30 • Employed/educated at a higher rate than other offenders • High-BAC levels (.15>) • Often drink more per occasion and consume more alcohol than the general population; majority are binge drinkers • Often have SUDs • Have personality and psychosocial factors that increase risk of offending: irritability, aggression, thrill- Impaired driver seeking, impulsiveness, external locus of control profiles (blaming others), anti- authoritarian attitudes 19 19 High-risk impaired drivers… who ARE these people? 20 10 7/15/2021 • Overwhelmingly male (90%); ages 20-45 • More often single, separated, or divorced • Tend to have lower levels of education/income and higher levels of unemployment compared to first offenders • More likely to have BACs exceeding .20 or refuse to provide a chemical sample • Age of onset of drinking, Repeat impaired family history, and alcohol drivers misuse are risk factors 21 21 • Likely to have cognitive impairments (executive cognitive functioning) due to long-term alcohol dependence • More likely to have a higher disregard for authority and show greater indications of anti-social personality characteristics • May result in lack of motivation which can affect Repeat impaired willingness to engage in drivers treatment 22 22 11 7/15/2021 High-Risk Impaired Drivers: A Judicial Perspective 23 Seizing the Opportunity “An encounter with the criminal justice system provides a valuable opportunity to intervene in an individual’s life by identifying the clinical needs of substance abusers and then confronting them with the consequences of their own drug and alcohol use.” “Responding to Substance Abuse: The Role We All Play,” 1999 24 24 12 7/15/2021 • The earlier the better • Pretrial services report • Conditions to reasonably protect the community • Pretrial supervision Pretrial Release: Early Intervention 25 Sentencing the Impaired Driver “Controlling and preventing drunk driving is complex, requiring a variety of inter-related alcohol and therapeutic activities that are often directed toward the behavioral and cultural attributes of alcohol consumption.” Source: Michigan DWI/Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock Evaluation Report (2016) 26 26 13 7/15/2021 Missouri Chief Justice William Ray Price On Evidence-based Sentencing “There is a better way. We need to move from anger-based sentencing that ignores cost and effectiveness to evidence-based sentencing that focuses on results — sentencing that assesses each offender’s risk and then fits that offender with the cheapest and most effective rehabilitation that he or she needs.” State of Judiciary Address (2010) 7/15/2021 27 27 The Michigan Approach M.C.L.A. 257.625b(5) “Before imposing a sentence for [impaired driving] . the court shall order the person to undergo screening and assessment . to determine whether the person is likely to benefit from rehabilitative services, including alcohol or drug education . or treatment programs.” 28 14 7/15/2021 Information is Key "Every judge understands that with more information about an offender's circumstances, a sentence can be better tailored to the person to ensure he or she doesn't repeat the offense." Source: David Wallace, Highway to Justice, at p. 5-6 (a publication of the American Bar Association, Summer 2015). 29 29 • Docket pressures Bench Issues & • Lack of information • Lack of tools to effectively Challenges Faced address high-risk offender • Perhaps -- an incomplete understanding about community supervision 30 15 7/15/2021 Sentencing & Supervision Approaches: Suggestions •Establish reduced recidivism as a specific goal •Combine effective substance abuse treatment with mental health services •One size does not fit all! •Open lines of communication between court- probation-treatment •Insist upon presentence assessments and evaluations 31 Working with the Judiciary: Additional Thoughts • Collaborate with treatment court community • Subject matter experts • Promote judicial education • Promote coordination & communication among: • Judiciary • Healthcare • probation 7/15/2021 32 32 16 7/15/2021 Three Essential Elements of Effective Supervision 1. Monitor behavior and compliance 2. Enforce conditions of supervision 3. Assist supervisees to change their behavior 33 Use of Evidence-Based Practices: What Works? • Validated risk and needs assessments • Reliable assessments and treatment plans • DWI Court models • Increased and on-going supervision 34 34 17 7/15/2021 • “An accountability court DUI/DWI Treatment dedicated to changing the Court behavior of hardcore DWI offenders through intensive supervision & treatment.” (NCDC) • Applies Drug Court principles to DWI cases: • To change behaviors • To improve outcomes • Over 700 DWI and hybrid (DWI/adult drug) treatment courts 35 35 Effective assessments + Effective treatment + Effective supervision Reduced recidivism 36 36 18 7/15/2021 WHAT IS A DWI COURT? collaborative team approach holistic and comprehensive court monitoring change behavior accountability high-risk / high-need long-term treatment frequent alcohol and drug testing recovery intensive supervision non-adversarial 37 Research on DWI Courts • “DWI Courts reduce DWI recidivism and general criminal recidivism while returning substantial cost savings to the taxpayers.” • Recidivism reduced by an average of >12%; and by as much as 50-60% Source: National Center for DWI Courts, Research Update on DWI Courts (The Bottom Line, January 2015) 38 19 7/15/2021 REDUCES RECIDIVISM Georgia Repeat offenders graduating from DWI Michigan court were 65% less An analysis Minnesota likely to be rearrested of three An evaluation of nine DWI courts found for a new DWI, and counties in a that high-risk individuals had better between 47-112 repeat two-year outcomes, including reducing recidivism DWI arrests were period found by up to 69% (2014). prevented (2011). DWI court participants were 19x less likely to be Campbell Collaboration arrested for a A meta-analysis of 28 evaluations found an DWI (2008). average reduction of DUI and general criminal recidivism by 12%. The best DUI courts reduced recidivism by 50-60% (2012). 39 DECREASES CRASHES San Joaquin County, California DUI court participants were half as likely to be involved in an alcohol- or drug-related crash over a period of 18 months (2012). 40 20 7/15/2021 COST-EFFECTIVENESS Minnesota DUI courts saved taxpayers $700,000 Maryland annually and produced an average of DUI courts produce net $2.06 (a high of $3.19 in one court) in cost-benefits to taxpayers benefits for every $1 invested – a 200% of more than $1,500 per return on investment (2014).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Medical Education. INSTITUTION State Univ
    Doman RESUME ED 192 216 CG 014 672 AUTHOR Galanter, Marc. Ed. TITLE Alcohol and Drug Abuse in Medical Education. INSTITUTION State univ. of New York, Brooklyn., Downstate Medical Center.: Yeshiva univ.. Bronx, N.Y. Albert Einstein Coll. of Medicine. PONS AGENCY National Inst. on Drug Abuse (DBZW/PHS), Rockville, Md. REPORT NO ADM-79 -891 PUP EATS SO GRANT TO1-DA-00083: T01-CA-00197 NOTE 128p. AVAILABLE Pint superintendent of Documents, O.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 EDES PRICE mF01/FC06 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Alcohol Education: *Drug Abuse: *Drug Education: Higher Education: *Medical Education: medical School Faculty; Medical Services; *Physician Patient Relationship: Physicians: *social Responsibility: State cf the Art Reviews ABSTRACT This book presents the state of the art of American medical education in alcohol and drug abuse,and is the culmination of a four-year collaborative effort among the medicalschool faculty, of the Career Teacher Program in Alcohol and DrugAbuse. The first part contains reports, curricula, andsurvey data prepared for the medical education community, focusingon drug abuse and alcoholism teaching in medical/osteopathic schools, icourse on alcoholism for physicians, the Career Teacher Program andResource Handbook, and the role of substance abuse attitudes in_treatment.The second part is-- the proceedings of the NationalConference on Medical Education and Drug Abuse, November 1977. The conference sessionsaddress issues such as: (1) the physician's role in substance abuse treatment;(2) physicians' use of drugs and alcohol:(3) drug abuse questions on the National Board Examinations: and (4)an overview of the Career Teacher Program activities. (Author/HLM) * *s * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ***************** * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *0 Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • Dwi Drug Court Intervention and Treatment Program
    DWI DRUG COURT INTERVENTION AND TREATMENT PROGRAM OPERATIONS MANUAL EL PASO, TEXAS TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview Page 1-3 Eligibility/disqualification criteria Page 4 Pre-qualification screenings/clinical assessment Page 4-5 Confidentiality/Consent for Release of Confidential Information Page 5-9 Program Phase Requirements Page 10-15 Incentives/Sanctions (Grid Tables) Page 16-23 Treatment Services Page 24-25 Supervision Protocol Page 26 Alcohol/Drug testing Protocol Page 27 Termination Criteria Page 27 Program Fees Page 27-28 Team Staffing Meetings Page 28 Data Collection and Program Evaluation Page 28-29 Team member roles Page 29-31 Team Member Departures and Replacement Page 32 Team Member Coverage Page 32 Use of DWI Drug Court Program Equipment Page 33 Equipment/Electronics Usage (Statement of Understanding) Page 34-35 SOP for Surveillance officers Page 36-41 Surveillance Report Form Page 42 Confidentiality Agreement Page 43-44 Participant’s Program Contract Page 45-55 Participant Program Handbook Page 56-74 1 FORWARD The policies and procedures, outlined in this manual, represent the minimum requirements of the DWI Drug Court Intervention and Treatment Program. Additionally, specific practices were developed to provide team guidance and encourage DWI Drug Court participant conformity. The structure of these policies and procedures will: • Creating public awareness through forums and informational meetings; • Minimize duplication of efforts and ensure greater coordination among all affected departments and agencies; • Maximize coordination and sharing of treatment resources; • Strengthen efforts to obtain funding; by periodically reviewing, monitoring, and • Managing data; furthermore to analyze program effectiveness, modified operations and refine goals. MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the DWI Drug Court Program is designed to reduce recidivism of alcohol and drug offenders and to enhance public safety through a cost effective integrated continuum of care and a judicially supervised regime of treatment and innovative case management.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction
    Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction A Treatment Improvement Protocol TIP 40 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES BP Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Buprenorphine Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Clinical Guide www.samhsa.gov BP Buprenorphine Clinical Guide Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction in the Treatment Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine TIP 40 Clinical Guidelines for the Use of Buprenorphine in the Treatment of Opioid Addiction Laura McNicholas, M.D., Ph.D. Consensus Panel Chair A Treatment Improvement Protocol TIP 40 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment 1 Choke Cherry Road Rockville, MD 20857 Acknowledgments described in this document are intended or should be inferred. The guidelines in this Numerous people contributed to the document should not be considered development of this TIP (see pp. ix, xi, and substitutes for individualized client care and appendix J). This publication was produced treatment decisions. by the American Institutes for Research® (AIR) under the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) contract, task order Public Domain Notice number 277-00-6401 under the Substance All materials appearing in this volume except Abuse and Mental Health Services those taken directly from copyrighted sources Administration (SAMHSA) contract, Number are in the public domain and may be 277-99-6400, U.S. Department of Health and reproduced or copied without permission from Human Services (DHHS). CAPT Susanne SAMHSA/CSAT or the authors.
    [Show full text]
  • DWI COURTS Judge John “Kevin” Holbrook
    DWI COURTS Impaired Driving Case Essentials Honorable Michael Barrasse Honorable Peggy Fulton Hora Rhinestone Cowboy at .20 “Down and Out in Beverly Hills” “Rock Bottom” at .17 Brave(?) Mouth at .12 with prior “Baby Love” at .20 Objectives Overview of NCDC/DWI Drug Court Model Federally funded DWI Courts Discuss Unique Attributes of DWI cases Discuss “Ideal Participants” for DWI Courts Consider DWI Court workings Don’t drink and make signs Problem Solving Courts Problem Solving Courts a.k.a Collaborative Justice, Solution-Focused Courts Problem Solving Focus Team Approach to Decision Making Integration of ancillary services Judicial Supervision of Treatment Process and Proactive Role of Judge In and Out of Court Direct Interaction between Participants and Judge Community Outreach ~2,500 Drug Tx Courts in U.S. Adult Federal Juvenile District Drug Tx Campus Family Courts Tribal DWI Reentry 500 1,157 Problem-Solving Courts Re- entry Gambling Gun Child Community Supp Mental Truancy P-S Health Courts Integrated DV Tx Veteran Prosti- tution Home Parole less Vio. International Perspective on Problem-Solving Courts Australia Bermuda England Jamaica Canada Mauritius Scotland Wales Ireland Northern Ireland New Zealand Guam Cayman Islands N. Marianas Belgium Guam Netherlands Mexico Georgia Surinam Macedonia Israel Brazil Norway Problem Solving Considerations Changing Traditional Attitudes of Judges and other team members Changing Role Orientations of Judges and other team members Resource Constraints Time Constraints
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Court Review
    DRUG COURT REVIEW Volume IX, Issue 1 NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA DRUG COURT REVIEW VOLUME IX, ISSUE 1 EDITOR IN CHIEF Douglas B. Marlowe, JD, PhD ASSOCIATE EDITOR Carolyn D. Hardin, MPA MANAGING EDITOR Vanessa Cunningham West, MA PRODUCTION EDITOR Jennifer L. Carson EDITORIAL BOARD Steven Belenko, PhD Shannon M. Carey, PhD Fred L. Cheesman, PhD David S. Festinger, PhD Michael W. Finigan, PhD Cary E. Heck, PhD Scott Henggeler, PhD Matthew L. Hiller, PhD Judge Peggy F. Hora (Ret.) Robert Kirchner, PhD Judge William G. Meyer (Ret.) Randy Monchick, JD, PhD Roger H. Peters, PhD Michael Rempel, MA John Roman, PhD Lisa M. Shannon, PhD, MSW NATIONAL DRUG COURT INSTITUTE C. West Huddleston, III, Chief Executive Officer Carolyn D. Hardin, MPA., Senior Director 1029 N. Royal Street, Suite 201 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Tel. (703) 575-9400, Fax (703) 575-9402 www.ndci.org | iii Copyright 2014, National Drug Court Institute The National Drug Court Institute (NDCI) is the Professional Ser- vices Branch of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). NDCI is grateful to the Bureau of Justice Assistance with- in the Office of Justice Programs at the U.S. Department of Justice for the support that made this publication possible. This project was supported by Grant No. 2012-DC-BX-K007 award- ed by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assis- tance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Jus- tice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the SMART Office, and the Office for Victims of Crime.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERSA) 125 Whipple Street, 3Rd Floor Providence, Rhode Island 02908
    Strategic Plan for Interdisciplinary Faculty Development: Arming the Nation’s Health Professional Workforce for a New Approach to Substance Use Disorders Edited by MARY R. HAACK, PHD, RN, FAAN HOOVER ADGER, JR., MD, MPH Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse (AMERSA) 125 Whipple Street, 3rd Floor Providence, Rhode Island 02908 For more information: AMERSA Telephone: 401-349-0000 Fax: 877-418-8769 Web Sites: www.amersa.org and www.projectmainstream.net This publication has been produced by the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse under a Cooperative Agreement (HRSA-#U78HP00001) with the Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), in collaboration with the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The conclusions and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views and policies of HRSA or of SAMHSA. September 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................................iii Contributors ....................................................................................................................................................................v Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................................vii
    [Show full text]
  • Wayland Baptist University Annual Daapp
    Drug and Alcohol Abuse Prevention Program WAYLAND BAPTIST UNIVERSITY ANNUAL DAAPP TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 2 SANCTIONS 3 LEGAL SANCTIONS 5 Federal Law 6 Alaska 8 Arizona 20 Hawaii 29 New Mexico 32 Oklahoma 53 Texas 81 HEALTH RISKS 108 Drugs 108 Alcohol 124 DRUG AND ALCOHOL COUNSELING OPTIONS 124 Alaska 125 Arizona 127 Hawaii 128 New Mexico 129 Oklahoma 130 Texas 130 ANNUAL NOTIFICATION OF DAAPP 135 BIENNIEL REVIEW OF DAAPP 135 1 WAYLAND BAPTIST UNIVERSITY ANNUAL DAAPP INTRODUCTION Wayland Baptist University joins with Universities and Colleges across the United States in an effort to provide education about and to prevent drug and alcohol use and abuse. The United States Congress passed and the President signed into law the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act Amendments of 1989-Public Law 101-226 on December 12, 1989. This Act requires an institution of higher education to certify that it has adopted and instituted a program to prevent the unlawful possession, use or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students, faculty, and staff. The conditions for meeting these certification requirements include the following provisions: 1. All institutions of higher education must provide annually, in writing, to faculty, staff, and students a statement declaring: a. Standards of conduct that prohibit unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol on University property or in connection with University activities; b. An institutional commitment to impose sanctions against students, faculty, and staff who violate such standards of conduct; c. Appropriate legal sanctions under local, state and federal law for the unlawful possession or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol; d.
    [Show full text]
  • Court Intervention: Pre-Sentence Investigation
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. ------~--- ---- .. National Criminal Justice Reference Service COURT INTERVENTION: PRE-SENTENCE This microfiche was 'produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condition of the documents submitted, INVESTIGATION the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on this frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. TECHNIQUES FOR DRINKING/DRIVING OFFENSES 2 8 1.0 :; 11111 . 111111:~ W IIp·2 .2 W I.r.: I~ w: J:,i 14.0 ..,.I.::. u. - 1.1 tIl&.:.u - , == I 111111.25 11111·1.4 111111.6 I ! I MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS-1963-A .. ' ~ ...,.. '~'''';'''' ..' .. ~" - q P ARTI'CIPANT'S Microfil~ing proced~;~~~sed to create this fiche comply with & the standards set forth i1141CFR lOl-11.SD4. MANUAL Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author(s) and do not represent the official U.S. Department of Transportation DATE FILMED ~ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration position or policies of the U. S. Department of Justice. Washington, D.C. 20590 '-, . ~ , .... ~ 1. _ .I. ' 1 9/04/81' " National Institute of Justice -;: .J.____ .... United States Department of Justice Washington, D. C. 2053<1 • , --~---.~--~. --- ~ I ! CONTENTS SEMINAR AGENDA iii ; - l AGENDA PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION SEMINAR Day One 0900-1200 1. Introduction and Overview UNITS 1. Introduction and Overview 1 i: This unit covers: (a) introduction and administrative infor­ 2. The Problem Drinking Drive 9 mation, (b) information on DOT/NHTSA standards, (c) the genesis of the project, and (d) explanation of the ASAP 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the Hennepin County Adult DWI Court
    ADULT DWI COURT PROGRAM Participant Handbook Fourth Judicial District Adult DWI Court Team The Honorable John Holahan, Fourth Judicial District Court 300 South Sixth Street, C-8 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Phone: 612.348.6000 • Fax: 612.596.8730 Drafted: December 13, 2006 Revised November 11, 2008 elcome to the Fourth Judicial District Adult DWI Court. We are here to help and support you in your goal to never drink and drive again. Your participation W in the program is one step in helping to alleviate this serious legal and social problem in our society. If you sincerely see the need to change your lifestyle by maintaining a sober, crime-free existence, we are confident you will be a successful participant in this program. As we begin this journey together, I am hopeful that you will eventually come to realize, step-by-step, day-by-day, as you are completing this program, how your overall quality of life has improved. Honorable John Holahan Fourth Judicial District Judge 1 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Program Rules ................................................................................................................................. 4 Cost of Program .............................................................................................................................. 5 Treatment ........................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Michigan Dwi/Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock Evaluation 2014 Report
    MICHIGAN DWI/SOBRIETY COURT IGNITION INTERLOCK EVALUATION 2014 REPORT CHRISTOPHER A. KIERKUS, Ph.D. BRIAN R. JOHNSON, Ph.D. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was made possible through the efforts and cooperation of many criminal justice professionals in the state of Michigan. The authors of this report would like to extend their thanks and appreciation to the following people and organizations: Dr. Jessica Parks: Problem Solving Courts Data Manager, State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). Ms. Dian Gonyea: State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). Hon. Harvey Hoffman: Chief Judge, 56th A District Court, Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals (MADCP). Hon. Michael Haley: Judge, 86th District Court. Hon. Dennis Girard: Judge, 96th District Court. Ms. Lynn Kirkpatrick: Director of Probation Services, 8th District Court. Mr. Gary Secor: Court Administrator, 61st District Court. Ms. Carol Stocking: Court Administrator, 86th District Court. Ms. Pamela Blue: Chief Probation Officer, 86th District Court. Ms. Jennifer Thom: Deputy Court Administrator, 51st District Court. Ms. Jennifer Bennon: Court Administrator, 96th District Court. Dr. George Grant Jr.: Dean, College of Community and Public Service, Grand Valley State University. Dr. Kathleen Bailey: Director, School of Criminal Justice, Grand Valley State University. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Michigan Supreme Court, State Court Administrative Office and/or the Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals. The Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals funded this report. i INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Purpose of the Report This report was commissioned by the Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals (MADCP) and was produced pursuant to Michigan Public Act 154 of 2010, in cooperation with the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO).
    [Show full text]
  • Probation Practitioner Handbook for the Management of the DWI Offender
    New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Office of Probation and Correctional Alternatives New York State Probation Practitioner Handbook for the Management of the DWI Offender August 2015 Page 1 of 110 This document is intended to serve as a practice reference for probation departments in New York State. Staffing and resources vary with jurisdiction and impact the provision of services. Page 2 of 110 Table of Contents Section I: Introduction and Overview ............................................................................................ 4-5 Section II: DWI Offender Management Components .................................................................... 5-6 Section III: Pretrial Supervision ...................................................................................................... 6-7 Section IV: Pre Sentence and Pre Plea Investigation and Reports ............................................... 7-17 Section V: Probation or Post Sentence Supervision .................................................................. 17-30 Section VI: Treatment, Drug or DWI Courts ................................................................................ 30-32 Section VII: Substance Abuse Treatment .................................................................................... 32-35 Section VIII: Driver’s Licenses, Relicensing and Drinking Driver Programs .................................. 35-38 Section IX: Victim Impact Panels and STOP DWI ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Issue 21.Pub
    TNDAGC D U I N E W S Issue 21 PUBLISHER : ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSE REVOCATION Tom Kimball, A.D.A. LAYOUT AND D ESIGN : Forty one States have a law that revokes a driver’s license through an Sherri Harper Administrative process if the driver is arrested for DUI. There is a great push coming in this year to add Tennessee as the forty second state. A tremendous INSIDE THIS ISSUE: amount of research and drafting work has been done by the AAA auto club, the Recent decisions 2-3 Department of Safety, the Office of the Secretary of State, MADD, the Attorney General, the District Attorneys General Conference and the staff of Governor 4 Governor and ALR Bredeson. Drugged Driving issues 5 With an Administrative License Revocation (ALR) law certain things happen: MADD Court Monitor 6-7 1). The driver is arrested after probable cause has been established; Doctor Shopping 8 2). The driver is given the option to take or refuse a breath or blood test; Prosecutor Training 9 3). The driver’s license is surrendered to the arresting officer; 9 4). The driver is given a temporary permit to drive for 90 days. DUI Convictions 5). The driver is given instructions to request an administrative hearing Murderer’s Row 10 within 10 days if he wants to challenge license revocation. If no Motorcycle Deaths 11 hearing is requested the license is revoked after 30 days. 6). The officer submits to the Department of Safety within five days; Crash Page 12 (a) a copy of the implied consent form; (b) a copy of the request for hearing ; TN D ISTRICT A TTORNEYS (c) a copy of the completed notice of proposed revocation; GENERAL C ONFERENCE , (d) a copy of the interim permit to drive; James W.
    [Show full text]