Driving While Intoxicated Tracking Systems. Volume 2, State Tracking System Descriptions

NHTSA · 1997 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report, Volume 2 of the "Driving While Intoxicated Tracking Systems" series, documents the design, legislative basis, and operational characteristics of state-level DWI tracking systems. Commissioned by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and conducted by Capital Consulting Corporation, the study addresses the critical need for effective data management in combating drunk driving. The motivation stems from the recognition that while federal data sources like the Fatal Accident Reporting System provide evidence of the DWI problem, most states lacked the internal tracking mechanisms necessary to manage offenders, evaluate policy efficacy, or ensure consistent sanctions. Without such systems, agencies cannot accurately assess recidivism, sanction completion rates, or the impact of legislative interventions. The methodology involved a qualitative assessment of DWI tracking systems in seven states: California, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Utah. Researchers conducted information discussion meetings with system managers and stakeholders, including law enforcement, courts, motor vehicle administrations, and treatment facilities. The study defined a DWI tracking system as any mechanism capable of assessing statewide DWI activity or tracking an offender from arrest through sentence completion. The report details the legislative frameworks, judicial and administrative sanctions, and specific system designs for each state, focusing on data flows, stakeholder roles, and development characteristics. The findings provide detailed descriptions of each state's system. For instance, California’s system is owned by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and relies on matching arrest data from the Department of Justice’s Monthly Arrest and Citation Register with DMV driver records. The report highlights specific operational challenges, such as the reliance on manual name matching in California and the varying timeliness of court data submissions. It outlines the specific legislative bases for prosecution, such as blood alcohol concentration thresholds and implied consent laws, and describes the range of sanctions, including license suspensions, fines, jail time, and mandatory treatment programs. The report also identifies system stakeholders and their roles in data entry and access, noting that some systems are real-time while others rely on annual statistical reporting. The significance of this report lies in its provision of a baseline for understanding the prevalence and condition of state-level DWI tracking capabilities. By documenting the existence and design of these systems, the report supports the development of standardized forms and procedures, which are essential for interstate cooperation and national statistical estimation. The findings underscore that effective tracking systems are vital tools for enforcement and management, enabling the identification of problem drivers, equitable sanctioning, and the evaluation of prevention programs. The report serves as a foundational resource for policymakers and traffic safety professionals aiming to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DWI intervention strategies through better data management.

Key finding

The report provides descriptive case studies of DWI tracking systems in seven states, detailing their legislative foundations, data integration methods, and stakeholder roles without presenting comparative quantitative performance metrics.

Methodology

review

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement