1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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 ( 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.

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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 ).
p=.292

7. 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 ).
p=.063

8. 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 ).
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.

9. 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

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

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

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

16. 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).