The History of NHTSA

From the recently published book, "DUI / DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence."

Available for purschase at: http://www.amazon.com/DUI-DWI-History-Driving-Influence/dp/1432746227/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258400052&sr=1-3

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an agency of the Executive Branch of the United States Government and part of the Department of Transportation. According to the agency its mission is to “[s]ave lives, prevent injuries, reduce vehicle-related crashes.” www.nhtsa.dot.gov No other entity, save the government itself, has had a greater influence in the field of DUI in the United States than NHTSA.

NHTSA’s primary role within the government is to write and enforce safety, theft-resistance, and fuel economy standards for motor vehicles (under the banner of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) system). In addition to these roles NHTSA also licenses vehicle manufacturers and importers, allows or blocks the import of vehicles and safety-regulated vehicle parts, administers the VIN system, develops the anthropomorphic dummies used in safety testing, as well as the test protocols themselves, and provides vehicle insurance cost information.

Another of NHTSA’s significant activities is the creation and maintenance of the data files maintained by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis. In particular, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) has become a resource for traffic safety research in the United States and other countries. NHTSA has a lot on its plate in addition to its role in vehicle safety and in particular DUI law.

In 1966 the United States Department of Transportation was born (on October 15, 1966). Around this time other government agencies were created which would eventually join to become NHTSA, including the National Traffic Safety Agency, the National Highway Safety Agency, and the National Highway Safety Bureau. NHTSA was officially established in 1970 by the Highway Safety Act of 1970. In 1972, the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act expanded NHTSA’s scope to include consumer information programs.

Presently NHTSA has an annual budget of US $815 Million (2007) and the agency classifies most of its spending under the “driver safety” heading, with a minority spent on “vehicle safety,” and a smaller amount on environmental matters of which it is in charge (i.e. vehicular fuel economy). NHTSA’s impact in the DUI field has been significant, and of particular note has been their role in DUI investigations and the standardization of FSTs.

For information on your DUI, please contact our Snohomish County DUI attorneys, King County DUI attorneys, Island County DUI attorneys, or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com/

Mandatory Alcohol/Drug Evaluations

From the recently published book, "DUI / DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence."

Available for purschase at: http://www.amazon.com/DUI-DWI-History-Driving-Influence/dp/1432746227/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258400052&sr=1-3

Mandatory Alcohol/Drug Evaluations

Mandatory alcohol/drug evaluations and treatment of DUI offenders to address potential substance abuse problems has support in law enforcement, in the judiciary, and organizations such as MADD. The idea is that if the offender is evaluated, found in need of treatment, and thereafter is treated for substance abuse issues then the chance of repeating the crime of DUI is diminished. Wells-Parker, E., Bangert-Drowns, B., McMillen, R. & Williams, M. Final results from a meta-analysis of remedial interventions with DUI Offenders. Addiction. 90:907-926 (1995)

MADD also suggests that an evaluation and treatment are not enough to correct future problems with drinking and driving and are not a replacement for other sanctions. MADD states that “[t]reatment works best when coupled with sanctions like administrative license revocation or vehicle impoundment.” Id.; www.madd.org There are too many critics of this approach to mention in this book.

For information on your DUI, please contact our Snohomish County DUI attorneys, King County DUI attorneys, Island County DUI attorneys, or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com/

Deferred Prosecution

From the recently published book, "DUI / DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence."
Available for purschase at: http://www.amazon.com/DUI-DWI-History-Driving-Influence/dp/1432746227/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258400052&sr=1-3

Deferred Prosecution

A unique approach to alcohol treatment is an optional (not mandatory) program afforded defendants in Washington State. In Washington State individuals charged with DUI are given an opportunity to utilize alcohol (or drug) treatment as a means to have their DUI dismissed. The program is called “deferred prosecution” and is unique to that State. Deferred prosecution permits those who are alcohol or drug dependent (or suffer from mental health issues) to enter into a two year treatment program in exchange for a complete dismissal of the charge (or charges) in five years, no jail, no fines, and no loss of license. Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 10.05

The Washington legislature has recognized that some people who are charged with criminal offenses are not necessarily criminal by nature but suffer from a problem that needs treatment. Jolly, David N. The DUI Handbook For The Accused. Outskirts Press. Pages 124-125 (2007) The legislature has recognized that the best way to keep an alcoholic (or drug addict) from driving drunk (or affected by drugs) is to get him or her to stop drinking or abusing drugs. Id. From this belief came the deferred prosecution statute. Id.

In order to qualify for deferred prosecution the defendant must obtain an evaluation from a state approved treatment agency. The treatment facility conducts a detailed assessment and if it concludes that the criminal conduct was the result of alcoholism, drug addiction or mental health problems and that the individual is amenable to treatment then the court will permit the petition (application) for deferred prosecution. Washington State only permits an individual to use this program once in a lifetime.

The program consists of a statutorily required two-year treatment program which is broken down to a demanding three phase schedule. The first phase is typically three or four nights a week (sometimes five nights a week depending on the provider) for the first three months (seventy -two hours of treatment in the first 90 days) or can involve an inpatient program. Phase two involves weekly treatment and counseling for six months. Phase three, the least rigorous of the three phases, requires counseling once a month for the balance of the two-year program. Additionally, two Alcoholics Anonymous or other self-help meetings per week are required for the full two years. Complete abstinence is required and the individual must be in total compliance or faces the risk of having the program revoked.

For information on your DUI, please contact our Snohomish County DUI attorneys, King County DUI attorneys, Island County DUI attorneys, or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com/

Ignition Interlock Device

From the recently published book, "DUI / DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence."

Available for purschase at: http://www.amazon.com/DUI-DWI-History-Driving-Influence/dp/1432746227/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258400052&sr=1-3

Ignition Interlock Device

The ignition interlock device (IID, or breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BIID)) is gaining popularity in governmental circles, court systems, and advocates against the crime of driving under the influence. The device is a breath test type apparatus that is connected to the vehicle’s dashboard, or more correctly to its ignition mechanism. The instrument requires the driver to provide a breath sample before allowing the vehicle to start. If the breath sample renders a clean result (i.e. a blood alcohol concentration reading below the permitted amount (usually, 0.00, 0.02, or 0.04 per cent)) the vehicle’s engine will start. Alternatively, if the driver provides a breath sample that is over the required amount then the vehicle will not turn over and the failed attempt will be reported to the governing agency.

While the vehicle is in motion (or the engine is turned on) the IID will randomly require the driver to provide another breath sample. The time between required breath samples is dependant on the calibration of the unit, however typically random breath samples are required every 10 to 20 minutes while the vehicle is in operation.

The purpose behind the random breath sample is to prevent a driver from having a “sober” friend blow into the device starting the vehicle. If the requested breath sample is not provided or exceeds the required limit, the device will record the incident, warn the driver and then start up an alarm (e.g., lights flashing, horn honking, etc.) until the ignition is turned off, or a clean breath sample has been provided.

A common, but inaccurate belief is that interlock devices will turn off the vehicle’s engine if alcohol is detected. Due to the fact that this would then create an unsafe or dangerous driving situation that would expose interlock manufacturers to substantial liability, a vehicle’s engine does not turn off if a breath sample detects too much alcohol on a driver’s breath. It is physically impossible for an interlock device to turn off a running vehicle.

Most of the ignition interlock devices in use today use an ethanol specific fuel cell for a sensor. This type of sensor is an electrochemical device where alcohol undergoes a chemical oxidation reaction on a catalytic electrode surface, typically made of platinum, to generate an electric current. This current is then measured and converted to an alcohol equivalent reading. Fuel cell technology is not nearly as accurate or reliable as the infrared spectroscopy technology used in evidentiary breathalyzers. However, IIDs are obviously substantially cheaper and smaller and therefore more practical for more widespread use.

The devices keep a running record of the activity on the unit and this record, or log, is printed out or downloaded each time the device’s sensors are calibrated, commonly at 30, 60, or 90 day intervals. In the DUI realm these records are provided to the courts for probation review and to the Department of Licensing in some instances. If the court still has jurisdiction and a violation is detected the court may require the driver to re-appear and possibly face addition sanctions.

To support the advocacy of the installation of IIDs there is research that suggests that drivers who have interlocks installed have lower recidivism rates while the device is in use, but that recidivism rates rise after interlock removal. Voas, R.B.; Marques, P.R.; Tippetts, A.S.; and Beirness, D.J. Alberta Interlock Program: The evaluation of a province-wide program on DUI recidivism. Addict 94(12):1849- 1859 (1999); Tashima, H.N., and Helander, C.J. 1999 Annual Report of the California DUI Management Information System. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles Research and Development Section. (1999) Further, there are even a few studies that have reported that recidivism was significantly reduced both during interlock installation and after removal. Weinrath, M. Ignition interlock program for drunk drivers: A multivariate test. Crime Delinquency 43(1):42-59 (1997); Beck, K.H.; Rauch, W.J.; Baker, E.A.; and Williams, A.F. Effects of ignition interlock license restrictions on drivers with multiple alcohol offenses: A randomized trial in Maryland. Am J Public Health 89(11):1696-1700 (1999)

There have been concerns that the installation of IID is in fact, dangerous. One study observed that “the risk of a subsequent crash was higher for drivers installing an IID by 84 percent.” DeYoung, D.J., Tashima, H.N., and Masten, S.V. An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Ignition Interlock in California. California Department of Motor Vehicles. Presentation at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C. Page 10 (January 11, 2005) This finding is not surprising considering the device demands drivers provide breath samples periodically while driving.

Other concerns are that false positives can occur in an IID. In one study a man who was attempting dramatic weight loss and who was on a very low calorie diet had his IID fail to start. International Journal of Obesity. 31 559-561. (August 8, 2006) The IID company Smart Start states that the following items can cause their device to fail: spicy foods, certain mouthwashes, some chocolate mints, Altoids, Dentyne and other gums, cinnamon rolls and donuts (the sugar and active yeast can combine to create a low level alcohol fail) and smoke (if blown directly into the unit). www.smartstartinc.com The debate regarding their value and their need shall continue.

For information on your DUI, please contact our Snohomish County DUI attorneys, King County DUI attorneys, Island County DUI attorneys, or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com/

DUI Victim Panel-A brief History

From the recently published book, "DUI / DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence." 
Available for purschase at: http://www.amazon.com/DUI-DWI-History-Driving-Influence/dp/1432746227/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258400052&sr=1-3

DUI Victim Panel

MADD has advocated for many years the mandatory attendance at a victim impact panel (VIP) for those charged with a DUI. A DUI VIP is an event in which the attendees listen to presentations made by relatives of victims or victims of DUI incidents and/or accidents. These victims or relatives relate their experiences to the attendees.

Most DUI VIPs charge for participation and some of the money collected from fees paid by participants eventually find its way back to MADD. In fact the organization collected $4,436,481 in 2006 from VIPs.

There have been mixed reviews over the years regarding the value of the DUI VIP. Some groups believe that they have tremendous preventative value while others believe that they are valuable to the recovery of victims. According to the John Howard Society, some studies have shown that allowing victims to give testimony is psychologically beneficial to them and aids in their recovery and in their positive opinion of the criminal justice system. Victim Impact Statements. John Howard Society of Alberta (1997) In the alternative, a New Mexico study suggested that DUI VIPs tended to be perceived as confrontational by multiple offenders. According to the study such offenders then had a higher incidence of future offenses. Woodall, W.G., Delaney, H., Rogers, E. & Wheeler, D.R. A Randomized Trial of Victim Impact Panels’ DWI Deterrence Effectiveness. Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse, and Addictions (CASAA), University of New Mexico (2000) Overall the effects and overall value of victim impact panels on recidivism has been mixed. Shinar, D., and Compton, R.P. Victim impact panels: Their impact on DWI recidivism. Alcohol Drugs Driv 11(1):73-87, (1995); Fors, S.W., and Rojek, D.G. The effect of victim impact panels on DUI/DWI rearrest rates: A twelve-month follow-up. J Stud Alcohol 60(4):514-520 (1999); C’de Baca, J., Lapham, S.C., Paine, S., and Skipper, B.J. Victim impact panels: Who is sentenced to attend? Does attendance affect recidivism of first-time DWI offenders? Alcohol Clin Exp Res 24(9):1420-1426 (2000)

For information on your DUI, please contact our Snohomish County DUI attorneys, King County DUI attorneys, Island County DUI attorneys, or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com/

Aggressive police tactics lead to increase in innocent motorists being charged with drunk driving.


There has been an increase in the numbers of sober drivers being falsely charged with driving under the influence across the United States. Despite laws that establish a blood alcohol content for intoxication at .08%, law enforcement agencies in several states, Ohio in particular, have adopted a zero tolerance position on alcohol. Both Maryland and the District of Columbia have criminal drunk driving penalties for motorists with a BAC under the legal limit. Drunk driving is a serious issue though the effort to make the streets safer has lead to many innocent drivers being caught up in a legal nightmare.

A man from Corvallis, Oregon is one such case. Brian Noakes was charged with suspicion of Oregon DUII after a traffic stop for having bloodshot eyes. He explained that he had a cold though the police officer was convinced that he was driving under the influence. While being arrested, Noakes wife asked what was happening and police threatened to Taser her. A breath test showed that Noakes had no alcohol in his system and a urine test came back negative for drugs. The district attorney declined to prosecute the case though Noakes will continue to have a permanent arrest record for drunk driving.

Washington, like several other states, does not allow arrests for traffic offenses, including driving under the influence, to be removed or expunged from a person’s record. That means that even if a defendant is found innocent or never formally charged, he or she could suffer the consequences of a false arrest for the rest of their life. Noakes’ arrest, in fact, cost him his job.

Noakes is suing the city of Corvallis and David Cox, the arresting police officer, for violation of his civil rights and false arrest. He also wants an unspecified amount of money for reimbursement of legal fees and damages. An internal police investigation found that the arrest was unlawful and the threats were improper. It was also determined that Cox had a known pattern of unjustified DUI arrests of motorists who were not legally intoxicated. Those arrests helped earn Cox praise for being one of the top DUI enforcers. He has since resigned from the force and left the state.

The pattern of false arrests for suspicion of driving while intoxicated is not limited to one state or one jurisdiction. More than 150 arrests for drunk driving in Cook County - Chicago were dismissed after a single officer was indicted for felony perjury for falsifying arrest reports. A motorist was accused of Arizona DWI because of what the officer described as slurred speech, when the defendant had actually just had denture work performed. A blood test showed a BAC of .22. Even without evidence of intoxication, the prosecutor filed three felony charges and the defendant eventually spent $12,000 in legal fees to defend herself.

Last year the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with input from the American Beverage Institute, updated its anti-drunk driving slogan to ‘Over the limit. Under arrest’ in effort to acknowledge that one can engage in responsible social drinking and legally drive after. Texas however clings to the old slogan ‘Drink. Drive. Go to Jail.’, leading an Austin DWI attorney to note that a percentage of his clients were not legally drunk at the time of their arrest.

For information on your DUI, please contact our Snohomish, King, Island or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com/

Texting More Dangerous than Driving Under the Influence

A study conducted by ‘Car and Driver’ shows that texting while driving is significantly more dangerous than driving under the influence of alcohol drugs. Drivers texting messages are 3-4 times slower than drunk drivers to apply brakes to avoid a collision.


Previous studies conducted in vehicle simulators have shown that texting impairs a driver’s skills. Car and Driver decided to conduct a study in actual vehicles and directly compare reaction times of those texting with those under the influence of alcohol. Using an airfield taxiway, drivers were required to react to a light mounted at eye-level on the windshield, simulating brake lights of an advance vehicle. Vehicle speed, brake pedal position and steering angle were all monitored, and baselines for the test were established. Data was collected as drivers responded to the dash light five times, with the slowest reaction time being dropped. First the drivers performed the test while texting. They then consumed alcohol until their blood alcohol content registered .08%, the legal limit for intoxication in most states, and repeated the test without cell phones.

In one set of results, a driver’s response time while texting nearly tripled his baseline response. The extra reaction time while impaired was only .04 second more than his baseline. At 70 miles per hour, the subject’s vehicle traveled an additional 319 feet while texting, and 17 extra feet while impaired by alcohol.

A prominent national insurance provider estimates that 20% of drivers regularly send text messages or emails while driving.

For information on your DUI, please contact our Snohomish, King, Island or Skagit County DUI attorneys at 425-493-1115 or check out our website at http://www.washdui.com/