Changes in DUI Law: An Examination of a Nonadjudication Option Dr. Sheena K. Gardner Postdoctoral Research Fellow Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University August 10, 2016

House Bill 481 Amended Section 63-11-30, Mississippi Code of 1972 To provide that persons convicted of DUI will only be allowed to operate a vehicle equipped with an ignition-interlock device To provide a driver’s license therefor To remove hardship provisions To provide for nonadjudication To require mandatory probation To provide for the expunction of certain convictions Signed into law on April 11, 2013 Effective date July 1, 2014 In April of 2013 the governor of Mississippi passed House Bill 481 which was aimed at strengthening laws against drunk driving. While many legislators focused on how ignition interlock would reduce instances of drunk driving, of particular interest to me and others working with the Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program (MASEP), the state’s first time DUI offender program, are the changes involving the inclusion of nonadjudication. Nonadjudication is a form of pretrial diversion that allows for first-time DUI offenses to be dismissed and excluded from one’s record once the offender completed court-imposed conditions.

Nonadjudication Individual conditions Administrative Procedures Qualifying first offense (breath test was not refused) may be nonadjudicated Individuals are eligible for nonadjudication only one (1) time The person must obtain an interlock restricted license and can only operate a vehicle equipped with an ignition interlock device (6-12 months). Not eligible for any other form of license until person completes an alcohol safety education program Administrative Procedures Judge must forward a record of every nonadjudicated case to the Department of Public Safety The Department of Public Safety maintains a confidential registry of all nonadjudicated cases Judges and prosecutors have access to the registry for the purpose of determining whether an individual has previously had a nonadjudicated DUI case A record of nonadjudication shall be maintained for five (5) years If an individual wants to petition for nonadjudication of a DUI, a number of conditions must be met: it has to be a qualified first offense, can not have a previous nonadjudication, obtain an interlock restricted license and only use a vehicle equipped with interlock, and complete an alcohol safety education program. Administratively speaking, the state’s procedure for tracking nonadjudications involves several components: judge forwards nonadjudicated cases to the Department of Public Safety, DPS maintains confidential registry, Judges/prosecutors can access registry to determine if individual has previous nonadjudicated case, and nonadjudication shall be maintained for 5 years. We were given access to the nonadjudication registry a few months back with the intention of analyzing the data. Through our experiences running MASEP, we were not optimistic about the administrative aspect of nonadjudication. The experience thus far has been one characterized by a lack of communication between courts, and between the courts and the Mississippi Department of Public Safety, and the liberal use of judicial discretion. For instance, it is not uncommon for individuals to be court ordered to attend MASEP with a first-time DUI offense from multiple jurisdictions or from the same jurisdiction with multiple first-time DUI offenses.

Challenges with Nonadjudication Registry Maintained in an Excel File Data entry issues Missing driver license numbers Same nonadjudication entered multiple times Multiple nonadjudications for a single person Courts are responsible for contacting the Department of Public Safety Only recently added citation date Low Match Rates between Nonadjudication and DUI Citation Records Only have access to Mississippi citation records Inclusion of social security numbers as driver license numbers

Characteristics of Nonadjudication Population Analysis of nonadjudication and DUI citation data was done in two steps. First, using the nonadjudication data provided by the Department of Public Safety, I examined whether there was a change in the types of people who have their DUI nonadjudicated. Second I compared the characteristics of individuals receiving a nonadjudication to the general DUI population to determine if there were any differences.

Period of Arrest by Race   Arrest Prior to Passage of HB 481 Arrest Between Passing of HB 481 and Effective Date Arrest After Effective Data Total White 329 217 162 708 76.2% 79.5% 71.1% 75.9% Black 89 49 58 196 20.6% 17.9% 25.4% 21.0% Other 14 7 8 29 3.2% 2.6% 3.5% 3.1% 432 273 228 933 100.0% There were no statistically significant differences by race across the three time periods (2009-March2013; April 2013-June 2014; July 2014-2015). p=.292

Period of Arrest by Gender   Arrest Prior to Passage of HB 481 Arrest Between Passing of HB 481 and Effective Date Arrest After Effective Data Total Female 85 59 63 207 19.7% 21.6% 27.6% 22.2% Male 347 214 165 726 80.3% 78.4% 72.4% 77.8% 432 273 228 933 100.0% There were no statistically significant differences by gender across the three time periods (2009-March2013; April 2013-June 2014; July 2014-2015). p=.063

Period of Arrest by Age p=.000   Arrest Prior to Passage of HB 481 Arrest Between Passing of HB 481 and Effective Date Arrest After Effective Data Total Under 21 230 75 33 338 53.2% 27.5% 14.5% 36.2% 21 and Older 202 198 195 595 46.8% 72.5% 85.5% 63.8% 432 273 228 933 100.0% p=.000 There were statistically significant differences by age across the three time periods (2009-March2013; April 2013-June 2014; July 2014-2015). The proportion of individuals over the age of 21 receiving a nonadjudication is significantly lower in the arrest period prior to the passage of the bill compared to the time period following the passage the bill and the time period following the enactment of the new DUI law. This makes sense because nonadjudications were limited to individuals under the age of 21.

Period of Arrest by Prior Arrest   Arrest Prior to Passage of HB 481 Arrest Between Passing of HB 481 and Effective Date Arrest After Effective Data Total No Prior Arrest 388 252 219 859 89.8% 92.3% 96.1% 92.1% Prior Arrest 44 21 9 74 10.2% 7.7% 3.9% 7.9% 432 273 228 933 100.0% p=.018 Prior arrests (back to 2005) among individuals receiving a nonadjudication is significantly lower among those arrested in the period after the enactment of the new DUI law compared to those arrested during the time period prior to the passage of the bill. There are no statistically significant differences prior arrests when comparing the period prior to the passage of the bill and the period following the passage of the bill. People with a previous DUI conviction are not eligible for nonadjudication

Comparing General DUI Population to Nonadjudication Population Next I examined differences between the nonadjudication population and the general DUI population.

Nonadjudication Status by Race   General DUI Population Nonadjudication Population Total White 59761 708 60469 51.6% 75.9% 51.8% Black 53300 196 53496 46.0% 21.0% 45.8% Other 2779 29 2808 2.4% 3.1% 115840 933 116773 100.0% p=.000 There’s a statistically significant difference in the racial composition of the population of nonadjudicated individuals compared to the general DUI population. A larger proportion of individuals in the nonadjudicated population are white compared to the general population.

Nonadjudication Status by Gender   General DUI Population Nonadjudication Population Total Female 23467 207 23674 20.3% 22.2% Male 92373 726 93099 79.7% 77.8% 115840 933 116773 100.0% p=0.151 There is no statistically significant difference in the gender composition of the nonadjudicated and general DUI populations.

Nonadjudication Status by Age   General DUI Population Nonadjudication Population Total Under 21 12133 338 12471 10.5% 36.2% 10.7% 21 and Older 103816 595 104411 89.5% 63.8% 89.3% 115949 933 116882 100.0% p=.000 There’s a statistically significant difference in the age composition of the population of nonadjudicated individuals compared to the general DUI population. A larger proportion of individuals in the nonadjudicated population are under the age of 21. That’s to be expected.

Nonadjudication Status by Recidivation   General DUI Population Nonadjudication Population Total Did Not Recidivate 93844 190 94034 91.3% 86.8% Recidivated 8898 29 8927 8.7% 13.2% 102742 219 102961 100.0% Those included in the analysis had to have at least one year in which they were at risk for recidivating and recidivated within 1 year. p=.018 There’s a statistically significant difference in recidivism in the population of nonadjudicated individuals compared to the general DUI population. A larger proportion of individuals in the nonadjudicated population recidivated compared to the general DUI population.

Nonadjudication Status by Time to Recidivation   General DUI Population Nonadjudication Population N 9496 34 Mean 153.1802 155.2941 Std. Deviation 103.43055 88.62229 Std. Error Mean 1.0614 15.1986 p=.090 There is no statistically significant difference in the time to recidivation between the nonadjudicated and general DUI populations.

Looking into the Future: Statistical Analyses Extend window for DUI recidivism from one to three years Analysis using a matched sample of adjudicated first-time DUI offenders and nonadjudicated offenders Linking offenders to MASEP assessment data Conduct multivariate analyses to control for offender characteristics Demographics Driver histories Prior DUI citations Prior DUI convictions Prior traffic citations MASEP assessment results Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) Research Institute on Addictions Self-Inventory (RIASI) Short Inventory of Alcohol and Other Drug Consequences (InDUC) Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D 10-item) Measures of frequency and amounts of alcohol consumption, binge drinking, other drug use and levels of psychiatric distress (including anxiety and other negative moods).