MOST WANTED
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
IMPROVEMENTS

State Issues
HIGHWAY
Eliminate Hard Core Drinking Driving


Importance

In 2009, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driver-related crashes nationwide, based on data released by NHTSA.

The NTSB made a series of recommendations in 1984 to address detecting, arresting, and adjudicating repeat offenders. Because thousands of deaths continue to occur involving people who drive while intoxicated, in 2000 the NTSB focused its efforts on hard core drinking drivers.

Hard core drinking drivers (repeat offender-drinking drivers with a prior driving-while-intoxicated [DWI] arrest or conviction within the past 10 years or offenders with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15 percent or greater) pose an increased risk of crashes, injuries, and fatalities.

In 2009, hard core drinking drivers were involved in a minimum of 7,607 (more than 70 percent of all) alcohol-impaired-driver-related fatalities, the estimated cost of which was $900,000 per fatality.

The NTSB believes that a model program to reduce hard core drinking driving would incorporate the following elements: (1) statewide sobriety checkpoints; (2) vehicle sanctions to restrict or separate hard core drinking drivers from their vehicles; (3) state and community cooperative programs to enforce DWI driver's license suspension and revocation; (4)legislation to require that DWI offenders maintain a zero BAC while operating a motor vehicle; (5) legislation that defines a high BAC (0.15 percent or greater) as an "aggravated" DWI offense; (6) alternatives to confinement, such as home detention with electronic monitoring; (7) legislation that restricts the plea bargaining of a DWI offense to a lesser, nonalcohol-related offense; (8) elimination of diversion programs that permit erasing, deferring, or otherwise purging the DWI offense record or that allow the offender to avoid license suspension; (9) administrative license revocation (ALR) for BAC test failure and refusal; (10) a DWI record retention and DWI offense enhancement look-back period of at least 10 years; and (11) individualized sanction programs for hard core DWI offenders.

Safety Recommendation: This issue area currently includes one recommendation (H-00-26).

H-00-26 (to the states and the District of Columbia)
Issued: August 7, 2000
Added to the Most Wanted List: 2003
Status: Various
Establish a comprehensive program that is designed to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by hard core drinking drivers and that includes elements such as those suggested in the NationalTransportation Safety Board's Model Program. (Source: 2000 Safety Report on Actions to Reduce Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes Involving the Hard Core Drinking Driver [NTSB-SR-00-01])

Summary of Action

Since the NTSB's recommendation was issued, all states have considered related legislation, and at least 36 states and the District of Columbia have adopted one or more elements of the model program. No state has adopted all of the elements recommended in the NTSB's model program; however, six states (CA, NE, NH, OH, UT, and VA) have made sufficient progress for closure.

  • Thirty-eight states (AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, and WV) and the District of Columbia authorize sobrietycheckpoints (element 1), but not all of these jurisdictions conduct sobriety checkpoints with the same frequency.
  • Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of vehicle sanction, but only seven states (FL, IA, KS, MS, OH, OR, and VT) have adopted at least four of the five vehicle sanctions (element 2) mentioned in the NTSB's model program. The most common vehicle sanction is ignition interlock. Although 41 states already had provisions authorizing the use of interlocks when the NTSB issued its report, there has been substantial activity in the last few years to broaden the use of this effective technology.
  • The NTSB had identified three states (LA, NE, and OH) that use "hot sheet" programs[1] to identify DWI offenders who may drive on a suspended or revoked license (element 3). Maine has adopted an acceptable alternative, an on-line suspended driver search service. South Carolina also has adopted an acceptable alternative, a statute that requires the licensing agency to release on a monthly basis the names and addresses of individuals whose licenses were suspended for DWI offenses.
  • Eleven states (CA, ME, MD, MN, MT, NH, NC, PA, UT, VA, and WI) have established a BAC requirement below the 0.08 limit for specified circumstances, such as driving while suspended after convicted of impaired driving or after multiple impaired-driving convictions (element 4). Five states (CA, ME, NH, UT, and VA) mandate the NTSB's recommended low-BAC limit of 0.00 or 0.02 after a driver's first conviction for impaired driving.
  • Aggravated offense or "high-BAC" laws are currently in place in 46 states and the District of Columbia (element 5), with 35 states having adopted the NTSB-specified level of 0.15/0.16 percent as the definition of a high BAC. Twenty-two states (AK, AZ, AR, CA, DE, FL, HI, IL, KS, KY, MD, MO, NE, NJ, NY, OR, PA, TX, UT, VA, WV, and WY) have adopted some form of a high-BAC law or have strengthened an existing high-BAC law since the NTSB's recommendation was issued.
  • Fortystates (AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, and WI) have adopted alternatives to confinement (element 6).
  • Twenty-seven states (AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, IA, KS, KY, MN, MS, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, SD, UT, WA, and WY) have adopted plea-bargaining restrictions (element 7).
  • Twenty-six states (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KY, ME, MN, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, RI, SC, TN, UT, VA, and WI) either have no diversion programs or prohibit DWI offenders from participating in diversion programs (element 8).
  • Forty states (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY) and the District of Columbia authorize ALR (element9).
  • Twenty-seven states (AK, CT, GA, ID, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MA, MN, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, and WI) and the District of Columbia have established a records retention period and look-back period [2] of 10 years or longer (element 10).
  • Thirty-six states (AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, KS, LA, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, and WY) have established individualized sanction programs for hard core DWI offenders (element 11).
  • In 2009, Kansas established a DWI commission to provide recommendations to the legislature on changes to current DWI laws. Three states (AR, NJ, and OH) implemented at least one element of the hard core drinking driving recommendation; five other states (FL, HI, MD, NM, and WY) strengthened elements that they had already implemented.
  • In 2010, three states (KY, VT, and WY) implemented at least one element, and two states (LA and NE) strengthened existing provisions.

Action(s) Remaining

  • Twelve states should authorize sobriety checkpoints.
  • Forty-three states and the District of Columbia should implement at least four vehicle sanctions. These measures include ignition interlocks, license plate action (impoundment, confiscation, or other actions), vehicle immobilization, vehicle impoundment, and vehicle forfeiture.
  • Forty-five states and the District of Columbia should establish special programs to identify drivers operating on a suspended or revoked license.
  • Forty-five states and the District of Columbia should require a zero or minimal ("low") BAC for convicted DWI offenders.
  • Fifteen states and the District of Columbia should adopt an "aggravated" BAC law that is consistent with the NTSB's recommended BAC level.
  • Ten states and the District of Columbia should develop alternatives to jail incarceration for DWI offenders.
  • Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia should enact laws that either prohibit DWI offenders from plea bargaining to nonalcohol-related offenses or require that the records include information on the original alcohol-related offense.
  • Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia should eliminate diversion as an option for DWI offenders and prevent the records of offenders from being erased.
  • Ten states should enact ALR laws to address both DWI test refusal and failure.
  • Twenty-three states should establish a look-back period of at least 10 years with appropriate records retention.
  • Fourteen states and the District of Columbia should authorize individualized sanction programs or an alternative, such as special DWI courts, for DWI offenders.

Footnotes

  1. Hot Sheet stands for "habitual offender tally sheet," and is a special enforcement program where the State licensing agency, on a regular basis, provides lists of drivers whose licenses have been suspended or revoked for alcohol-related offenses. Law enforcement agencies then use these lists to identify drivers who subsequently operate vehicles without a license.
  2. When determining whether a person is a repeat DWI offender, States establish look-back periods. Offenses that occurred beyond the length of the look-back period will not be considered.