Machines, Motives, and Management: Police Discretion in the Enforcement of Laws Against Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI)

• NCJ Number: 138368
• Journal: Alcohol, Drugs and Driving Volume: 7 Issue: 3-4 Dated: (July-December 1991) Pages: 205-214
• Author(s): A R Meyers
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 10 pages
• Grant Number(s): 1-R01-AA05709-01
• Sponsoring Agency: National Ctr for Statistics and Analysis; US Dept of Health and Human Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

Substantial research indicates that police officers frequently choose to not apprehend or arrest drivers they believe to be under the influence of alcohol.

Abstract

Police officers often make such decisions in response to expedient situational factors: competing law enforcement priorities; administrative policy or perception of such policy; and frustration with the way in which prosecutors, judges, and juries deal with driving under the influence (DUI). Estimates indicate that the probability of apprehending a drunk driver is between 1/200 and 1/2000 per driver trip. Stringent DUI laws create more offenders and give police officers proportionately more opportunity to exercise discretion. While there is considerable controversy about police officers' motives in exercising discretion and about the social consequences of police discretion in different law enforcement realms, there is general disapproval of police discretion in DUI enforcement. Discretionary leniency may expose individual police officers and the jurisdictions they serve to civil liability for the actions of intoxicated drivers they detect and apprehend but do not arrest. More significantly, discretion compromises the goal of general deterrence which motivates DUI laws in the United States and other countries. Available evidence suggests that the limited use and effectiveness of DUI enforcement technology are mainly management problems-- problems of perception, belief, and motivation. Technology alone, even when it is reinforced with high-quality technical training, will not significantly reduce police discretion. Discretion may compromise the goals of general deterrence, but it probably should not be eliminated from police work. More appropriate goals should be the elimination of pernicious forms of discretion; the development of consistent policies on discretion; and the coordination of policies on police discretion with those of prosecutors, judges, and others responsible for DUI enforcement. 39 references