Objectives. We sought to determine the statewide impact of having prior alcohol-impaired driving violations of any type on the rate of first occurrence or recidivism among drivers with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations in Maryland.

Methods. We analyzed more than 100 million driver records from 1973 to 2004 and classified all Maryland drivers into 4 groups: those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations. The violation rates for approximately 21 million drivers in these 4 groups were compared for the study period 1999 to 2004.

Results. On average, there were 3.4, 24.3, 35.9, and 50.8 violations per 1000 drivers a year among those with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more priors, respectively. The relative risks for men compared with women among these groups of drivers were 3.8, 1.2, 1.0, and 1.0, respectively.

Conclusions. The recidivism rate among first offenders more closely resembles that of second offenders than of nonoffenders. Men and women are at equal risk of recidivating once they have had a first violation documented. Any alcohol-impaired driving violation, not just convictions, is a marker for future recidivism.

Efforts at reducing the consequences of drinking and driving have met with some success over the last 2 decades. However, in spite of tougher laws, increased enforcement, and greater public awareness, the presence of persistent drinking drivers on US roadways continues to be a major public health problem. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have per se laws, which make it a criminal offense to drive with a blood alcohol concentration at or greater than 0.08%.¹ A conviction for alcohol-impaired driving traditionally results in a license suspension or revocation as well as other sanctions ordered by the judiciary. Because states consider driving a privilege and not a right, as a condition of licensure, a person is presumed to consent to chemical testing upon arrest for alcohol-impaired driving.² In addition to criminal proceedings, in 41 states (including Maryland) and the District of Columbia, a driver is subject to administrative license suspension (administrative per se; APS) for failing or refusing the chemical test.³ APS laws allow enforcement, acting in an administrative capacity at arrest, to immediately suspend or revoke the license of a driver independent of criminal proceedings. As a deterrent, APS laws enhance the certainty, celerity, and severity of sanctions for alcohol-impaired driving, something not always obtainable by the criminal justice system.⁴ Criminal prosecution for the violation follows APS; however, sanctioning drivers under both mechanisms is not considered double jeopardy under constitutional law.

Following a criminal conviction, at least 22 states have diversion programs that allow convicted drinking drivers to ultimately escape criminal sanctions by entering alcohol education, alcohol treatment, or other programs that permit judgment or prosecution to be deferred.⁵

Diversion programs generally lead to dismissal of a conviction after successful completion of the program by the offender and can prevent or delay the offense from appearing on an offender’s public driving record. For example, in Maryland, a conviction leading to a diversion program (i.e., probation before judgment) is documented in a segregated (i.e., isolated) record that is not available to the public or insurance companies as part of the person’s driver record.

Alcohol-impaired driving legislation and sanctions have historically targeted offenders with multiple convictions. Less attention has been paid to so-called first offenders (those with no prior history of an alcohol-impaired driving conviction on their public driving record), and this limited focus has been on those actually convicted for driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI). APS penalties mandated under per se regulations for failing the breath alcohol test (APS failure) or refusing the breath alcohol test (APS refusal) and probation before judgment are often excluded from alcohol-impaired driving statistics. This narrow focus only on convictions thus underestimates the prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving.

It is a widely held belief among the legislative and judicial branches of state government that most first offenders criminally convicted of an alcohol-related traffic offense are overindulging “social drinkers” who may have had only a single isolated drinking and driving episode that resulted in arrest. This belief often translates into lighter sanctions for first offenders.⁶ For example, drivers who are perceived to be first offenders are more often granted probation,^7,8 are less likely to receive jail sentences,⁷ and are more likely to receive education⁹ for a conviction than are multiple offenders. Moreover, the general perception of the first-time offender is someone who is not a problem drinker, is generally law abiding, can be reasoned with, and only needs education.⁶ These assumptions may help to explain the lighter sanctions afforded first offenders. However, they appear to be inconsistent with published estimates that a person can drive while impaired by alcohol 200 to 2000 times before being arrested once^10–15 and empirical evidence suggesting that many so-called first-time alcohol-impaired drivers are problem drinkers¹⁶ and are unlikely to be reformed through educational interventions.⁶

In a literature review sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Jones and Lacey¹⁷ concluded that first and multiple DWI offenders share many similar characteristics and that a number of studies could not distinguish the characteristics of first from multiple offenders.^7,16,18–22

Despite empirical evidence that the first documented alcohol-impaired driving conviction on a public driving record is often not the first occurrence,²³ offenders who are convicted for the first time are commonly afforded light sanctions. Some arrested or convicted drivers manage to have their driver records completely expunged, and many state motor vehicle administration offices routinely purge driving records after a set number of years.²⁴ In some states, including Maryland, evidence that a driver received a conviction and diversion program is held as a segregated or sealed record and may be excluded from the driver record upon successful completion of program requirements. Moreover, some DUI offenders receive administrative sanctions but are not convicted criminally, and others may have their charges reduced to a lesser or nonalcohol-related offense through plea bargaining. Given these factors, combined with the low probability of arrest, it is reasonable to assume that the typical so-called first-time offender will have had an extensive history of alcohol-impaired driving by the time an offense is documented in the state’s department of motor vehicles or criminal record systems.²⁵

In addition to the lighter judicial and legislative sanctions afforded those offenders apprehended for a “first” offense, a closer look at recidivism rates of DUI offenders with nominally 1, 2, or even 3 or more documented arrests is warranted because, in reality, such drivers may in fact have regularly engaged in drinking and driving without developing a documented conviction record, as a consequence of at least 6 factors: (1) having a low probability of arrest, (2) states’ practice of expunging or purging driver records, (3) plea bargaining to lesser offenses, (4) offenders receiving administrative sanctions but not criminal convictions, (5) states’ using segregated driver records, and (6) excluding alcohol-related violations from official records among diversion-program participants. Thus, criminal and administrative records commonly used to evaluate risk for recidivism underrepresent the actual violations among the drinking and driving population.

We sought to compare the risks of committing a new alcohol-impaired traffic offense (of any type) among drivers with 0, 1, 2, or 3 or more prior violations. Specifically, we were interested in determining whether the risk (rate) of new offenses among drivers who had a single prior violation was closer to the risk for multiple offenders or to drivers with no prior alcohol-related offenses……..” read the entire study for its full value.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853607/