Transcript Sobriety court a drug court for dangerous drunk drivers Are repeat drunk drivers really dangerous?

Sobriety court
a drug court for
dangerous drunk
drivers
Are repeat drunk drivers really
dangerous?
Don't courts already
prevent drunk driving
recidivism?
And if they don't does it
matter?
And besides,
change is hard
Of approx. 1.5 million DWI
arrests each year,
about one-third (500,000) have
previous DWI arrests.
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
Number of prior Convictions (3 or More)

Alabama
54,043

Maryland
25,120

Arkansas
34,554

New Jersey
19,841

California
310,971

North Dakota
372 35

Connecticut
15,723

Ohio

District of Columbia
32

Rhode Island

Florida
108,853

South Carolina
14,148

Georgia
45,598

Tennessee
54,081

Iowa
10,128

Texas

Illinois
49,527

Vermont

Kentucky
7,956

Washington
19,783

Massachusetts
22,253

West Virginia
27,837

Maine
21,759

Wisconsin
33,166
147,000
3,408
124,662
6,069
46% of car
crashes
involved
alcohol
Of those,
39% were
fatal
drivers who caused
these fatalities were
7 times more likely to
have a prior
conviction
for drunk driving
people killed by terrorism
in the U.S. In 2001:
2,966
people killed by drunk
drivers in the U.S. in 2001:
17,448
What the courts
have been doing
works about as well as
So what does work?
Sobriety
Court!
How do we know?
The evidence is in!
Sobriety court reduces
DWI re-arrest rates
by as much as
19 times
According to the Michigan DUI Courts Outcome
Evaluation published March 2008.
Michigan Sobriety Courts
Outcome Evaluation
percent of re-arrest
So what is a Sobriety
Court?
a type of drug court for
people convicted of
drunk driving, who had a
high bac, or had prior
drunk driving convictions
Similarities to
Drug court
A sobriety court follows the ten
key components used by all drug
courts
 The sobriety court team is
composed of the judge, a program
coordinator, probation officers,
prosecutors, defense attorney, and
counselor
 The length of the program is 18
months

Drug Court Similarities
Each defendant must sign a contract
and agree to participate in open
court on the record
 defendants wave certain rights (the
right to the attorney of their choice,
medical privacy and any objection to
random drug tests or searches)
 The judge meets with each defendant
on a regular basis bi-weekly or
monthly to review their progress
 There is a team review prior to the
review session with defendant

Drug Court similarities
Defendants see their alcohol/drug
counselor twice a week
 Attend a 12 step program daily for
the first 90 days
 Test daily for the first 60 days
 See a probation officer weekly
 Subject to unannounced visits to
their home for purposes of testing
 Rewards for progress
 Sanctions for failure to comply

Drug Court Similarities
There is gradual reduction in
supervision called a step down
 The number of drug/alcohol tests
declines with progress
 The number of 12 step meetings per
week declines with progress
 Probation officer meetings decline
to every other week
 Individual counseling ends, but
group counseling continues

Variations from the
Drug Court model
Defendants must be convicted
to enter the program
 Defendants must live in the
court's jurisdiction
 Necessary focus on convincing
defendants that they are
addicts

A major variation:
graduation is not the end
After a defendant graduates they
continue on probation for at least
nine months
 During this phase they no longer see the
judge
 They continue to see their probation
officer, at first bi-weekly and then
monthly
 They are subject to random testing
 They continue in aftercare programs

The results of one sobriety
court
As of december 31, 2008:
788 participants have been
admitted with only a 30% failure rate
 128 participants currently in the
program.

No new DWI offenses were committed after two
years by successful Dwi Court Participants.*

Drug court participants (who failed to complete) had a new
DWI case in the two years following discharge a 2.19%
recidivism rate.*

* 2009, evaluation of the 52/1 district court program conducted by The
Michigan Supreme Court State Court Administrative Office.