This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grohosky, A. R. Articles by Ochshorn, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

An Alcohol Policy Evaluation of Drinking and Driving in Hillsborough County, Florida

Rider University, Lawrenceville, New Jersey

Kathleen A. Moore

University of South Florida, Tampa, kamoore{at}fmhi.usf.edu

Ezra Ochshorn

University of South Florida, Tampa

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a serious crime that contributes to approximately 9% of traffic-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities in the state of Florida. Specifically, Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa, has the highest rate of DUI-related occurrences in the state of Florida. There are several gaps in policy, enforcement, and treatment that need to be addressed before Hillsborough County can shed this dubious distinction. To this end, 15 key stakeholders involved in alcohol policy were interviewed about law enforcement, judicial, and treatment issues. Several obstacles to reducing DUI crime emerged: inadequate case preparation time, case overload, prosecution challenges such as leniency and inconsistency in sentencing, and the need for more collaboration between law enforcement, the judicial system, and treatment providers. Suggested recommendations included the addition of a DUI court, stricter legal and treatment requirements, and mandatory blood testing.

Key Words: drinking and driving • alcohol policy

References

• Dejong, W., & Hingson, R. (1998). Strategies to reduce driving under the influence of alcohol. Annual Reviews of Public Health, 19, 359-378.[CrossRef]
• DeYoung, D.J. (1997). An evaluation of the effectiveness of alcohol treatment, driver license actions and jail terms in reducing drunk driving recidivism in California. Addiction, 98(2), 989-997.
• DeYoung, D.J. (2002). An evaluation of the implementation of ignition interlock in California. Journal of Safety Research, 33(4), 473-482.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Dill, P.L., & Wells-Parker, E. (2006). Court mandated treatment for convicted drinking drivers. Alcohol Research and Health, 29(1), 41-48.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Fradella, H.F. (2000). Mandatory minimum sentences: Arizona's ineffective tool for the social control of driving under the influence. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 11(2), 113-135.[Abstract]
• Freeman-Wilson, K., & Huddleston, C.W. (1999). DWI/Drug Courts: Defining a national strategy. Alexandria, VA: National Drug Court Institute.
• Fulkerson, A. (2003). Blow and go: The breath-analyzed ignition interlock device as a technical response to DWI. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 29(1), 219-235.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Hedlund, J.H., & McCartt, A.T. (2002). Drunk driving: Seeking additional solutions. Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
• Huddleston, C.W., & Wosje, R. (2005). DWI courts: A promising sentencing innovation (DOT HS 809 850). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
• Jones, R.K., & Lacey, J.H. (2000). State of knowledge of alcohol-impaired driving: Research on repeat DWI o fenders (DTNH 22-98-C-05109). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
• Kunitz, S.J., Woodall, W.G., Zhao, H., Wheeler, D.R., Lillis, R., & Rogers, E. (2002). Rearrest rates after incarceration for DWI: A comparative study in Southwestern US County. American Journal of Public Health, 92(11), 1826-1831.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Martinez, P. (1998). Treatment of persons charged with driving under the influence: A multimodal program design. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 59(4-B), 1860.
• McCarty, D., & Argeriou, M. (1988). Rearrest following residential treatment for repeat offender drunken drivers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49(1), 1-6.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Mothers Against Drunk Driving (2002). It's time to get MADD all over again: Resuscitating the nation's e forts to prevent impaired driving. Irvine, TX: Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( 2003a). Initiatives to address impaired driving. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( 2003b). You drink & drive. You lose. National crackdown: Small scale sobriety checkpoints. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( 2005). Tra fic safety facts (DOT HS 810 630). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
• Snelling, E. (2006, July 31). Personal communication.
• Vallejo, J. (2005). Obvious choice: Alcohol and drug-impaired driving awareness. Tampa, FL: DUI Awareness Initiative.
• Wells-Parker, E., & Williams, M. (2002). Enhancing the effectiveness of traditional interventions with drinking drivers by adding brief individual intervention components. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(6), 655-664.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

CiteULike

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Grohosky, A. R. Articles by Ochshorn, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?