Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints
Briana Purifoy
Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints
Special Problems in Criminal Justice
Dr. Stone
December 1, 2010
Abstract A good theoretical basis exists for believing that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints and campaigns, may reduce drunk driving, and data from multiple checkpoint programs support this belief. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints, opposing those who believe them to violate the fourth amendment. Each year, more deaths result for alcohol-related automobile accidents than any other cause. Sobriety checkpoints, along with media coverage and cooperation from multiple groups, are a necessity to reduce the amount of drunk driving in America.
Introduction For many years, the law enforcement community has attempted to detect impaired drivers through numerous innovative efforts and measures. The problem of driving under the influence (DUI) is well known throughout society, yet, even with all of the strategies used to remove these drivers from U.S. highways, it continues to cause needless and tragic loss of life each year. When will this end? When will society no longer tolerate drunk driving? Until that time, the law enforcement community must attempt to contain the carnage inflicted upon law-abiding citizens by impaired drivers.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of fatal injury and the second-leading cause of nonfatal injury in the U.S. Young adults 15 to 24 years old are particularly at risk for motor-vehicle-related injury (Miller, Galbraith, Lawrence, 1998). Driving under the influence of alcohol is the dominant risk factor for serious highway crashes. General drunk-driving deterrence can be achieved with programs of frequent, highly visible checkpoints. Checkpoints also offer specific deterrence by apprehending drunk drivers. One study estimates that 87% of the drinking drivers apprehended at sobriety checkpoints would not be apprehended otherwise (Miller et al., 1998).
The consequential deaths
Effectiveness of Sobriety Checkpoints
Special Problems in Criminal Justice
Dr. Stone
December 1, 2010
Abstract A good theoretical basis exists for believing that properly conducted sobriety checkpoints and campaigns, may reduce drunk driving, and data from multiple checkpoint programs support this belief. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints, opposing those who believe them to violate the fourth amendment. Each year, more deaths result for alcohol-related automobile accidents than any other cause. Sobriety checkpoints, along with media coverage and cooperation from multiple groups, are a necessity to reduce the amount of drunk driving in America.
Introduction For many years, the law enforcement community has attempted to detect impaired drivers through numerous innovative efforts and measures. The problem of driving under the influence (DUI) is well known throughout society, yet, even with all of the strategies used to remove these drivers from U.S. highways, it continues to cause needless and tragic loss of life each year. When will this end? When will society no longer tolerate drunk driving? Until that time, the law enforcement community must attempt to contain the carnage inflicted upon law-abiding citizens by impaired drivers.
Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of fatal injury and the second-leading cause of nonfatal injury in the U.S. Young adults 15 to 24 years old are particularly at risk for motor-vehicle-related injury (Miller, Galbraith, Lawrence, 1998). Driving under the influence of alcohol is the dominant risk factor for serious highway crashes. General drunk-driving deterrence can be achieved with programs of frequent, highly visible checkpoints. Checkpoints also offer specific deterrence by apprehending drunk drivers. One study estimates that 87% of the drinking drivers apprehended at sobriety checkpoints would not be apprehended otherwise (Miller et al., 1998).
The consequential deaths
References: Blade, B. (1991). Fourth amendment- the constitutionality of a sobriety checkpoint program. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 81, 800-814. Clapp, J., Shillington, A., Voas, R., & Lange, J. (2003). Correlation between modes of drinking and modes of driving as reported by students at two American universities. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 35, 161-166. Erke, A., Goldenbeld, C., & Vaa, T. (2009). The effects of drunk-driving checkpoints on crashes- A meta-analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(5), 914-923. Dekalb County, Georgia, Police Department, Strategic Traffic Accident Reduction Team Report: Deterrence and Enforcement; Retrieved on November 29, 2010, from http://www.cyberlinkexchange.usww.com/homepages/starteam/dui-qu.htlm. Greene, J. (2003). Battling DUI: A comparative analysis of checkpoints. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from the Texas State University Alkek Library Database. Kanable, R. (2006). Protecting America’s roadways: High-Visibility DUI Enforcement. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from the Texas State University Alkek Library Database. Levy, D., Shea, D., & Asch, P. (1989). Traffic safety effects of sobriety checkpoints and other local DWI programs in New Jersey. MADD/Nationwide insurance survey conducted by the Gallup Organization, “New National Poll Shows Americans Support High-Visibility Crackdowns on Drunk Driving and believe DUI is the Worst Highway Safety Problem,” press release, 2005, Sep. 1. Miller, T., Galbraith, M. & Lawrence, B., (1998). Costs and benefits of a community sobriety checkpoint program. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59. Retrieved November 29, 2010, from the Texas State University Alkek Library Database. Ross, H. (1982). Deterring the drinking driver: Legal policy on social control. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Willard, R. (1990). Drunk driving: Are random checkpoints constitutional?.