2009 - 2010 Sobriety Checkpoint Mini-Grant Program - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – 2009 - 2010 Sobriety Checkpoint Mini-Grant Program PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 6fe43a-MjZhN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

2009 - 2010 Sobriety Checkpoint Mini-Grant Program

Description:

Program Pre-Operational Training By the California Office of Traffic Safety October November 2012 * ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:141
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 135
Provided by: berk83
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 2009 - 2010 Sobriety Checkpoint Mini-Grant Program


1
2012-2013 Sobriety Checkpoint
Program Pre-Operational Training
By the California Office of Traffic Safety
October November 2012
2
Agenda
  • Mobilization Periods
  • Media Objectives
  • Data Collection/Reporting
  • Checkpoint Operations
  • Checkpoint Supplies
  • OTS Contacts

3
  • Funding for this program was provided by a grant
    from the
  • California Office of Traffic Safety

Through the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
4
2012-2013 Mobilization Periods
  • Winter Holiday Mobilization
  • December 14th January 1, 2013
  • Summer/Labor Day Mobilization
  • August 16 September 2, 2013

5
Media Objective
  • Should issue a kick off press release using the
    template that will be supplied by UCB prior to
    your first checkpoint.

5
6
Media Objectives for the Mobilization Periods
  • If theres an AVOID campaign in your county,
    notify the AVOID Regional Coordinator of
    locations/dates/times as early as possible
  • The AVOID Coordinator will release a joint
    multi-agency press release to all major media in
    the region.

6
7
Media Objectives for the Mobilization Periods
Media Objectives for the Mobilization Periods
  • Should distribute to local community papers, a
    press release for each checkpoint operation
  • If there are multiple checkpoints within a 7-day
    period, use a single press release

7
8
Media Objectives for Outside the Mobilization
Periods
  • Distribute to local media, a press release for
    each checkpoint operation
  • If there are multiple checkpoints within a 7-day
    period, use a single press release

8
9
Media Objectives
Media Objectives
  • To enhance overall general deterrence, OTS
    recommends that the exact checkpoint location or
    an approximate location not be given to the
    media.

9
10
Reporting of Drugs and DUI Drugs to the Media
  • Any DUI Drug-impaired arrests made as the
    result of the checkpoint operation should be
    incorporated into the after-action media news
    release.
  • If its marijuana be sure to list it out
    separately.

10
11
Media Objectives
Media Objectives
  • Should use Californias DUI tagline on all news
    releases and checkpoint publication materials
  • Report Drunk Drivers. Call 911.

11
12
Media Objectives
Media Objectives
Media Objectives
  • If using the OTS press release template, there is
    no need to obtain OTS approval in advance.
  • If a non-OTS press release format/copy is used,
    it is recommended you submit to OTS Public
    Information Officer at pio_at_ots.ca.gov at least 14
    days in advance of the operation (or ASAP before
    each checkpoint).
  • If using the OTS press release template, there is
    no need to obtain OTS approval in advance.
  • If a non-OTS press release format/copy is used,
    it is recommended you submit to OTS Public
    Information Officer at pio_at_ots.ca.gov at least 14
    days in advance of the operation (or ASAP before
    each checkpoint).
  • If using the OTS press release template, there is
    no need to obtain OTS approval in advance.
  • If a non-OTS press release format/copy is used,
    it is recommended you submit to OTS Public
    Information Officer at pio_at_ots.ca.gov at least 14
    days in advance of the operation (or ASAP before
    each checkpoint).

12
13
Media Objectives
Media Objectives
  • Should send to SafeTREC
  • All press releases, media advisories, alerts and
    other press materials
  • Copies of all newspaper articles and short
    descriptions of broadcast news stories

13
14
Media Objectives
Media Objectives
  • For combination DUI/DL checkpoints, agencies
    should issue press releases that indicates
    Drivers Licenses will be checked at the
    DUI/Drivers License checkpoint.

15
Media Potential News Release Material
Media Potential News Release Material
  • According to NHTSA, sobriety checkpoint programs
    can yield considerable cost savings 6 for every
    1 spent.
  • According to NHTSA, sobriety checkpoints have
    provided the most effective documented results of
    any of the DWI enforcement strategies.
  • The DMV reports unlicensed drivers are 4.9 times
    more likely to cause a fatal crash than a
    licensed driver.
  • According to NHTSA, sobriety checkpoint programs
    can yield considerable cost savings 6 for every
    1 spent.
  • According to NHTSA, sobriety checkpoints have
    provided the most effective documented results of
    any of the DWI enforcement strategies.
  • The DMV reports unlicensed drivers are 4.9 times
    more likely to cause a fatal crash than a
    licensed driver.

15
16
Media Potential News Release Material
  • The checkpoint will be staffed by officers
    trained in the detection of alcohol and drug
    impairment to provide on-the-spot assessments of
    drivers suspected of drug impairment.
  • The primary purpose of a DUI Checkpoint is to
    increase awareness, deter impaired driving and to
    arrest those drivers who are found to be under
    the influence.

16
17
Media Potential News Release Material
  • All checkpoints are conducted in accordance with
    the guidelines for DUI checkpoint operations
    outlined in the California Supreme Court
    decision, Ingersoll v. Palmer.
  • The checkpoint location was chosen because it has
    a history of having a high incidence of alcohol
    crashes and/or arrests - safety was also an
    important consideration

17
18
Future OTS Funding Decisions
Future OTS Funding Decisions
  • When making funding decisions for the next round
    of proposals, OTS will look more closely at the
    number of vehicles through the checkpoint,
    drivers interviewed, SFSTs, and DUI arrests
    taking into account the cost of the checkpoint
    operation
  • According to a new NHTSA report, checkpoint
    contacts would be the best measure of
    checkpoint effectiveness

19
Schedule C Data Reporting Requirements
Schedule C Data Reporting Requirements
Schedule C Data Reporting Requirements
Speaking the Same Language
Speaking the Same Language
19
20
Data Collection
Data Collection
  • Alcohol-involved Fatalities Victims killed in
    collisions where a party (driver, pedestrian or
    bicyclist) was classified as Had Been Drinking
    (HBD-under influence, HBD-not under influence or
    HBD-impairment unknown - CHP).
  • Alcohol-involved Injuries Victims injured in
    collisions where a party (driver, pedestrian or
    bicyclist) was classified as Had Been Drinking
    (HBD-under influence, HBD-not under influence or
    HBD-impairment unknown (CHP-SWITRS)..

Alcohol-involved Fatalities Victims killed in
collisions where a party (driver, pedestrian or
bicyclist) was classified as Had Been Drinking
(HBD-under influence, HBD-not under influence or
HBD-impairment unknown - CHP). Alcohol-involved
Injuries Victims injured in collisions where a
party (driver, pedestrian or bicyclist) was
classified as Had Been Drinking (HBD-under
influence, HBD-not under influence or
HBD-impairment unknown (CHP-SWITRS)..
20
21
Data Collection
Data Collection
  • Traffic Fatalities Deaths resulting from motor
    vehicle traffic collisions, where the victim dies
    within 30 days for the collision (CHP- SWITRS).
  • Traffic Injuries Victims sustaining injuries as
    a result of a motor vehicle traffic collision.
    This would include victims with the extent of
    injury classified as severely wounded, other
    visible injuries, or complaint of pain. Victims
    killed are not included as injured (CHP -
    SWITRS).

Traffic Fatalities Deaths resulting from motor
vehicle traffic collisions, where the victim dies
within 30 days for the collision (CHP- SWITRS).
Traffic Injuries Victims sustaining injuries
as a result of a motor vehicle traffic collision.
This would include victims with the extent of
injury classified as severely wounded, other
visible injuries, or complaint of pain. Victims
killed are not included as injured (CHP -
SWITRS).
21
22
Data Collection
Data Collection
  • Vehicles passing through DUI checkpoints Total
    number of vehicles that passed through the
    checkpoint, regardless of whether or not drivers
    were contacted.

22
23
Data Collection
Data Collection
Data Collection
  • Drivers Contacted The initial driver contact by
    an officer on the line to observe possible signs
    of impairment (brief verbal greeting/observation,
    not secondary screening/FSTs)
  • Field Sobriety Tests (FST) Administered Number
    of drivers displaying signs of being under the
    influence, who are pulled aside to determine
    level of impairment by administering an FST.

23
24
Data Collection
  • DUI Arrests (Alcohol) - Drivers arrested for DUI
    when alcohol is presumed/determined to be the
    intoxicant (When unknown if drugs also a factor
    of impairment)
  • DUI Drug Impairment Arrest - Drivers arrested for
    DUI when drugs presumed/determined to be an
    intoxicant. 23152 (a) VC

24
25
Data Collection
Data Collection
Data Collection
  • Drug Arrests - Any arrest/citations issued for
    illegal drugs i.e.- possession, transportation,
    possession for sale, etc... (Does not include
    under the influence of drugs - non-DUI related,
    nor Marijuana Infraction)
  • Criminal Arrests (Felony in custody) - Those
    Felony Arrests not associated with a driving
    violation nor a drug arrest

25
26
Data Collection
Data Collection
Data Collection
  • Repeat DUI Warrant Service Operation A program
    consisting of pulling DUI warrants and visiting
    the address on record in an attempt to contact
    the person named on the warrant.
  • Warrant Service Attempts A DUI warrant is
    pulled and a visit to the address on record is
    made in an attempt to contact the person named on
    the warrant.
  • Warrants Served A DUI warrant is pulled, and
    the person on the warrant is contacted
    arrested.

26
27
Data Collection
Data Collection
  • Court Sting An operation targeting DUI
    offenders with suspended or revoked drivers'
    licenses who, upon leaving court, are observed
    driving.  If the offender is observed driving,
    he/she is cited/arrested.

27
28
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)
  • 48X48, DUI /Drivers License Checkpoint
    Ahead, black lettering on orange background,
    with spring post stand or tripod stand.
  • Other signs must be MUTCD compliant and
    retro-reflective, with spring stand, Tripod stand
    or A-frame barricade
  • Maximum Reimbursable Cost Per Item 400.00

28
29
29
30
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)
  • Traffic Control Cones 28 minimum, Orange
    w/reflective sleeves.
  • Maximum Reimbursable Cost
    per item 30
  • Traffic Control Vests FHWA federal guideline
    compliant. Maximum Reimbursable
    Cost per item 45
  • PAS Devices / Supplies
  • Maximum Reimbursable Cost per item 1,500

30
31
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)
  • Lighting System / Generator
  • Lighting stands or carts
  • Heavy duty extension cables
  • Generator
  • May not exceed 4999.00 total

31
32
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)
  • Your grant agreement will give you the total
    amount that can be claimed in the grant period
    for checkpoint supplies.

32
33
Checkpoint Operations
34
Checkpoint Operations
  • According to NHTSA, two-thirds of all motor
    vehicle fatalities between the hours of midnight
    and 3 a.m. occurred in alcohol-impaired-driving
    crashes, and more than half (55) of drivers
    involved in fatal crashes at those hours, were
    alcohol-impaired. So

35
Checkpoint Operations
  • ..If at all practicable it is recommended that
    checkpoint operations run until 0300 hours.

35
36
Checkpoint Operations
  • Because checkpoint operations limit the interview
    to (30 to 60 seconds), up to half of the
    over-the-limit drivers passing through a
    sobriety checkpoint are not apprehended Alcohol
    and Highway Safety A Review of the State of
    Knowledge (NHTSA 2011). So

36
37
Checkpoint Operations
To better identify and apprehend Drug impaired
drivers in addition to Alcohol impaired drivers,
it is highly recommended that all personnel
assigned to staff the greeting lane of the
checkpoint be Drug Recognition Experts (DRE's)
and/or Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving
Enforcement (ARIDE) trained sworn officers. At
the very minimum, all officers contacting drivers
in the greeting lane should be NHTSA Standardized
Field Sobriety Test (SFST) trained and
certified. 
37
38
Checkpoint Operations
  • Each checkpoint should be highly publicized and
    visible.
  • OTS does not fund or support independent DL
    checkpoints.

39
Checkpoint Operations
  • Unless approved by OTS in advance, grant funds
    cannot be used for DUI/DL checkpoints operating
    before 1800 hours

40
Checkpoint Operations
  • OTS does not fund (i.e., no reimbursements for)
    planned saturation patrols in DUI Mini Grant
    programs.
  • EXCEPTION Inclement Weather
  • If inclement weather occurs after overtime
    expenses have been contractually obligated AND
    the weather compromises the safety of the
    officers or the public, then the checkpoint(s)
    may be switched to saturation patrols

41
  • According to an opinion by the California
    State Attorney Generals Office and your OTS
    grant agreement, all DUI/DL checkpoint operations
    should have at least one sign with these words
  • DUI/Drivers License Checkpoint Ahead.

Note While additional warning signs can and
should be used as necessary or as desired, there
should be at least one sign in use in advance of
the checkpoint operation that uses these words on
a single sign.
42
(No Transcript)
43
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
  • January 1, 2012 among the new sections of the
    California Vehicle was 2814.2.
  • 2814.2 restricts the ability of law enforcement
    to seize a vehicle at a checkpoint when the
    drivers only offense is driving without a valid
    license.

44
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
  • 2814.2
  • The key language of the statute is 2814.2(b)
  • Notwithstanding Section 14602.6 or 14607.6, a
    peace officer or any other authorized person
    shall not cause the impoundment of a vehicle at a
    sobriety checkpoint if the drivers only offense
    is a violation of Section 12500.

45
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
  • First, 2814.2 only applies at checkpoints. It
    is not the law during routine traffic stops or
    other interactions between law enforcement and
    the motoring public. It is a checkpoint specific
    provision of the vehicle code.

46
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
  • Second, 2814.2 only applies to drivers who are
    in violation of California Vehicle Code section
    12500 and only 12500. If the driver is subject
    to any other offense that may invoke an impound
    process, then 2814.2 does not apply.

47
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
  • Third, 2814.2 only prevents the impoundment of a
    vehicle. It does not block the removal of a
    vehicle.

48
So, what can you do?
  • 2814.2 sets up a procedure that officers must
    follow when confronted with a 12500 driver at a
    checkpoint.

49
So, what can you do?
  • When an officer encounters a driver at a
    checkpoint who is 12500, and only 12500, the
    officer should issue the driver a citation for a
    violation of CVC 12500. The driver should not
    be permitted to continue driving the vehicle down
    the road. So, whats to be done with the vehicle?

50
So, what can you do?
  • 2814.2 provides that the registered owner of a
    vehicle seized at a checkpoint without a valid
    driver because of a 12500 violation (note
    12500 violation only, not 23152 or any other
    section) has until the conclusion of the
    checkpoint to claim the vehicle. (See, 2814.2(c))

51
So, what can you do?
  • Law enforcement should attempt reasonable efforts
    to locate the registered owner in order to
    effectuate the authorized release of the vehicle
    to a properly licensed driver.

51
52
Summary
  • In keeping with your departments policies, law
    enforcement can and should still impound vehicles
    seized at checkpoints from drivers with suspended
    or revoked licenses
  • Under 2814.2, law enforcement is no longer
    permitted to impound a vehicle pursuant to
    14602.6 if the sole offense is 12500 (driving
    without a valid license) at a checkpoint. The
    vehicle may only be removed, and then only once
    the registered owner is given an opportunity to
    rescue the vehicle prior to the conclusion of the
    checkpoint.

53
  • Summary
  • Law enforcement should not, except at its own
    peril, release a vehicle seized pursuant to
    2814.2 at the direction of the driver. Only when
    the driver and the registered owner are one in
    the same can the driver direct what is to be done
    with the vehicle.

54
But, what about those stopped by chase motors,
rovers or those outside of the checkpoint lane?
  • The "checkpoint" is not defined in the statute.
    One opinion is
  • that it is the point in space and time where the
    vehicle is stopped and the driver is contacted.
  • Could there be others?

55
Three primary case laws related to DUI
Checkpoints
  • Ingersoll v Palmer State of California - 1987
  • People v Banks State of California - 1993
  • Michigan State Police v Sitz US Supreme Court -
    1990

56
Of the three primary cases, Ingersoll is the one
we rely upon the most here in California
There are 8 basic requirements in Ingersoll
57
Ingersoll 8
(1) Whether the decision to establish the
checkpoint, the selection of the site, and the
procedures for operation are established by
supervisory law enforcement personnel
(2) Whether motorists are stopped according to a
neutral formula
(3) Whether adequate safety precautions are
taken, such as proper lighting, warning signs,
and signals, and whether clearly identifiable
official vehicles and personnel are used
(4) Whether the location of the checkpoint was
determined by a policymaking official, and was
reasonable
(5) Whether the time the checkpoint was conducted
and its duration reflect good judgment on the
part of law enforcement officials
(6) Whether the checkpoint exhibits sufficient
indicia of its official nature (to reassure
motorists of the authorized nature of the stop)
(7) Whether the average length and nature of
detention is minimized
(8) Whether the checkpoint is preceded by
publicity.
58
About That Publicity Requirement
About That Publicity Requirement
After Ingersoll, there were two cases that
directly addressed the publicity issue and they
are
In these cases the Courts held that advanced
publicity is not necessary for a checkpoint to be
valid but
59
.... Extensive research has shown that a high
level of publicity is essential to a successful
impaired driving enforcement program.
60
NEW RECENT CASE San Francisco
NEW RECENT CASE San Francisco
PEOPLE v. ALVARADO The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and
Respondent, v. Walter ALVARADO, Defendant and
Appellant. No. 2404632. February 07, 2011
60
61
Alvarado contended that the prosecution failed to
Alvarado contended that the prosecution failed to
Alvarado contended that the prosecution failed to
Alvarado contended that the prosecution failed to
Alvarado contended that the prosecution failed to
Alvarado contended that the prosecution failed to
(1) Establish that the selection of the
checkpoint site and the procedures for the
checkpoint operation were made and established by
supervisory personnel
(2) Establish that the officers employed a
neutral formula for stopping vehicles during the
checkpoint
(3) Demonstrate that the checkpoint location was
reasonable and effective in achieving the
government interest of deterring drunk driving
(4) Offer any evidence as to the length and
nature of the checkpoint detentions
(5) Offer any evidence as to the length and
nature of the checkpoint detentions
61
62
Alvarado
  • Role of Supervisory Personnel
  • Role of Supervisory Personnel
  • Role of Supervisory Personnel
  • Role of Supervisory Personnel

The People introduced evidence that a captain
ordered the checkpoint. Undisputed evidence
showed that it was the Traffic Sergeant who
endorsed and approved the procedures actually
used. The procedures apparently endorsed by the
sergeant differed appreciably from those
The People introduced evidence that a captain
ordered the checkpoint. Undisputed evidence
showed that it was the Traffic Sergeant who
endorsed and approved the procedures actually
used. The procedures apparently endorsed by the
sergeant differed appreciably from those
The People introduced evidence that a captain
ordered the checkpoint. Undisputed evidence
showed that it was the Traffic Sergeant who
endorsed and approved the procedures actually
used. The procedures apparently endorsed by the
sergeant differed appreciably from those
The People introduced evidence that a captain
ordered the checkpoint. Undisputed evidence
showed that it was the Traffic Sergeant who
endorsed and approved the procedures actually
used. The procedures apparently endorsed by the
sergeant differed appreciably from those
(1) Specified by the captain
(1) Specified by the captain
(1) Specified by the captain
(2) On the forms used by officers at the scene
(2) On the forms used by officers at the scene
63
Alvarado
  • Neutral Formula
  • Neutral Formula
  • Alvarado argued that the trial court erred in
    finding that the checkpoint operated under a
    neutral formula because the Officer did not
    follow the instructions on the official Sobriety
    Checkpoint Form. But it appears that the officer
    on the scene did employ neutral criteria, albeit
    a combination of two systems employed as traffic
    conditions dictated.
  • Alvarado argued that the trial court erred in
    finding that the checkpoint operated under a
    neutral formula because the Officer did not
    follow the instructions on the official Sobriety
    Checkpoint Form. But it appears that the officer
    on the scene did employ neutral criteria, albeit
    a combination of two systems employed as traffic
    conditions dictated.

64
Alvarado
Alvarado
Alvarado
  • Neutral Formula
  • Neutral Formula
  • While the Officer testified he used this five
    cars at a time method through the entire
    evening, there were occasions when he gathered
    cars in groups of less than five. The Officer did
    this due to the nature of traffic flow, i.e.,
    there may not have been five cars available and
    the police could not wait for an additional one
    or two more cars.

65
Alvarado
  • Site Selection
  • Site Selection
  • Ingersoll stated The sites chosen for sobriety
    checkpoints should be those which will be most
    effective in achieving the governmental interest
    i.e., on roads having a high incidence of alcohol
    related accidents and/or arrests. Safety factors
    must also be considered in choosing an
    appropriate location. (Ingersoll, supra, 43
    Cal.3d at p. 1343.) A sobriety checkpoint
    would be improper at a location without any
    significant traffic or incidence of drunk
    driving (Id. at p. 1344.)
  • Ingersoll stated The sites chosen for sobriety
    checkpoints should be those which will be most
    effective in achieving the governmental interest
    i.e., on roads having a high incidence of alcohol
    related accidents and/or arrests. Safety factors
    must also be considered in choosing an
    appropriate location. (Ingersoll, supra, 43
    Cal.3d at p. 1343.) A sobriety checkpoint
    would be improper at a location without any
    significant traffic or incidence of drunk
    driving (Id. at p. 1344.)

66
Alvarado
  • Site Selection
  • Site Selection
  • There was no evidence explaining the selection of
    the specific checkpoint site used here. To be
    sure, there was evidence that the site had been
    used before. But there was no evidence that the
    intersection at issue had a high incidence of
    alcohol-related accidents.
  • There was no evidence explaining the selection of
    the specific checkpoint site used here. To be
    sure, there was evidence that the site had been
    used before. But there was no evidence that the
    intersection at issue had a high incidence of
    alcohol-related accidents.

67
Alvarado
  • Length and Nature of Detention
  • Length and Nature of Detention
  • Alvarado argued that the trial court erred by
    finding that the issue of timing and duration did
    not apply in the present case, and that there was
    no evidence proffered below on the length and
    nature of the checkpoint detentions. (Compare
    Ingersoll, supra, 43 Cal .3d at p. 1327 28
    seconds for average detention, six minutes for
    those given field sobriety tests.) The trial
    court found that the factor did not apply in this
    case. The trial court was in error.
  • Alvarado argued that the trial court erred by
    finding that the issue of timing and duration did
    not apply in the present case, and that there was
    no evidence proffered below on the length and
    nature of the checkpoint detentions. (Compare
    Ingersoll, supra, 43 Cal .3d at p. 1327 28
    seconds for average detention, six minutes for
    those given field sobriety tests.) The trial
    court found that the factor did not apply in this
    case. The trial court was in error.

68
Alvarado
  • Lack of Advance Publicity
  • Lack of Advance Publicity
  • Lack of Advance Publicity
  • Lack of Advance Publicity
  • Lack of Advance Publicity
  • Advance publicity is important to the
    maintenance of a constitutionally permissible
    sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both reduces the
    intrusiveness of the stop and increases the
    deterrent effect of the roadblock. (Ingersoll,
    supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1346.) No such evidence
    was presented below.
  • Advance publicity is important to the
    maintenance of a constitutionally permissible
    sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both reduces the
    intrusiveness of the stop and increases the
    deterrent effect of the roadblock. (Ingersoll,
    supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1346.) No such evidence
    was presented below.
  • Advance publicity is important to the
    maintenance of a constitutionally permissible
    sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both reduces the
    intrusiveness of the stop and increases the
    deterrent effect of the roadblock. (Ingersoll,
    supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1346.) No such evidence
    was presented below.
  • Advance publicity is important to the
    maintenance of a constitutionally permissible
    sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both reduces the
    intrusiveness of the stop and increases the
    deterrent effect of the roadblock. (Ingersoll,
    supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 1346.) No such evidence
    was presented below.
  • Alvarado, citing Banks, supra, 6 Cal.4th 926,
    agrees that the lack of advance publicity alone
    will not render a sobriety checkpoint
    unconstitutional, but suggests that, in
    conjunction with other failures, the lack of
    advance publicity renders the sobriety checkpoint
    in this case unreasonable.
  • Alvarado, citing Banks, supra, 6 Cal.4th 926,
    agrees that the lack of advance publicity alone
    will not render a sobriety checkpoint
    unconstitutional, but suggests that, in
    conjunction with other failures, the lack of
    advance publicity renders the sobriety checkpoint
    in this case unreasonable.
  • Where lack of advance publicity is the sole
    infirmity in a checkpoint procedure, Banks
    instructs us to deny the motion to suppress but
    where other problems are found, this factor may
    tip the scales in favor of granting the motion.
  • Where lack of advance publicity is the sole
    infirmity in a checkpoint procedure, Banks
    instructs us to deny the motion to suppress but
    where other problems are found, this factor may
    tip the scales in favor of granting the motion.
  • Where lack of advance publicity is the sole
    infirmity in a checkpoint procedure, Banks
    instructs us to deny the motion to suppress but
    where other problems are found, this factor may
    tip the scales in favor of granting the motion.

69
Alvarado
  • Court Ruling
  • Court Ruling
  • Here, the record shows that the People did not
    sustain their burden as to at least

1. The role of supervisory personnel in
prescribing the procedures to be used at the
checkpoint
1. The role of supervisory personnel in
prescribing the procedures to be used at the
checkpoint
2. The rationale for selecting the particular
location used for the checkpoint.
3. The length of detentions
3. The length of detentions
4. Advance publicity
4. Advance publicity
The Court also noted the thin evidence of neutral
criteria used when fewer than five cars were
pulled over at a time.
The Court also noted the thin evidence of neutral
criteria used when fewer than five cars were
pulled over at a time.
70
Alvarado
TSRP Legal Opinion as it relates to Alvarado on
the issues not addressed by the Court.
  1. Data has to drive the site selection process.
    Data is seen as "neutral." In Alvarado the people
    relied on a "we always do it here" argument. We
    all see how that went. Data, data, data!
  1. The role of supervisory personnel. This is
    perhaps the most troubling aspect of the case.
    The court points out that a Capt made decisions,
    but these decisions were not followed by, and
    were in fact superseded by a Sergeant.
    Furthermore, what the Sgt. order differed from
    the directives in the hands of officers on scene.
  1. Yes, there are defense attorneys that challenge
    the chute method as being non-neutral. This
    opinion says the chute method is okay. It also
    okays switching between neutral systems when
    traffic pattern changes. There are also other
    California appellate ruling that okays the chute
    method.

71
Alvarado
Issues directly addressed by the Court Re Length
and Nature of the Detentions and Publicity
  1. Ingersoll notes, no hard and fast rules as to
    timing or duration can be laid down, but law
    enforcement officials will be expected to
    exercise good judgment in setting times and
    durations, with an eye to effectiveness of the
    operation. (In Ingersoll, 28 seconds for average
    detention, six minutes for those given field
    sobriety tests.) While the People's brief
    suggests that such evidence was provided, it
    consisted of nothing except a statement that the
    procedures were designed to keep traffic
    flowing.
  1. Where lack of advance publicity is the sole
    infirmity in a checkpoint procedure, Banks
    instructs us to deny the motion to suppress but
    where other problems are found, this factor may
    tip the scales in favor of granting the motion

72
Fraud Awareness and Financial Stewardship
73
Fraud Awareness and Financial Stewardship
  • Federal grant funds are awarded for a specific
    public purpose and grantees must use those
    funds within certain parameters.
  • Unfortunately, fraud, waste and misuse of these
    funds can and does occur.

74
United States Office of the Inspector General
(OIG)
  • Investigations by the federal Office of the
    Inspector General (OIG) and NHTSA have detected
    some cases of fraud involving grantees receiving
    federal highway safety grant funds.

75
THE OIG INVESTIGATION
  • How was the problem discovered?
  • It was an accident!
  • Investigation involved Local Police
    Department/HSO/FBI/OIG/NHTSA
  • Focus on overtime STEP grants (OP, DWI,
  • Speeding Other)
  • Significant Local/State/National media coverage
  • OIG Investigation Broadened Nationally

76
OIG INVESTIGATIONS RESULTS
  • 506,000 identified as misused in 4 police
    departments.
  • State has or will pay back to NHTSA
  • 24 Officers removed or resigned 1 retired.
  • 25 Officers indicted. Adjudication in process.
  • Investigations are continuing. The dollar amount
    and number of officers involved will likely
    increase.

77
SCHEMES ASSOCIATED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANT
FRAUD
  • Falsification of Log sheets
  • Falsification of Tickets
  • Misuse of Administrative Time

78
FALSIFICATION OF LOG SHEETS
  • Officers misreport hours worked, time tickets
    were written, number of tickets written to get
    paid for time not worked.
  • Sometimes with tacit approval of supervisor.
  • Discovered when officers log sheets were
    compared to actual time worked based on dispatch
    logs, ticket records, vehicle logs.

79
FALSIFICATION OF TICKETS
  • Discovered when an officers ticket book was
    found with completed ticket information but no
    times noted.
  • Times omitted from tickets until log sheet
    completed.
  • False time entered on ticket to appear as if
    written during overtime shift.

80
OTHER EXAMPLES OF FRAUD (CONTINUED) FALSIFYING
DOCUMENTS THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS
  • State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) contracts with
    a government for a highway safety grant who
    subcontracts with contractor for services.
  • Grant Agreement specifies staff time to be billed
    at 125/HR
  • Also, work performed by subcontractor is to be
    billed at the actual subcontractor rate of 75/HR
  • Sub-grantee contracts with a 3rd party
  • Sub-grantee submits voucher to SHSO at the
    125/HR
  • Sub-grantee submitted false invoices from
    sub-contractors
  • Formal complaint by a sub-contractor
  • Audit and forwarded to OIG for further
    investigation

81
OTHER EXAMPLES OF FRAUD (CONTINUED) CONTRACTOR
FRAUD
  • SHSO contracted with non-profit agency and
    individuals to do outreach, presentations and
    training.
  • Contractor submitted false vendor invoices
  • SHSO accountant identified inconsistencies
  • State investigation uncovered numerous fraudulent
    issues
  • Two individuals indicted for felony theft, filing
    false public records and payroll fraud
  • State to reimburse 265,000 to NHTSA
  • Contractors submitted false activity reports for
    work that did not occur
  • First contractor discovered by anonymous tip
  • State investigation broadened to other
    contractors
  • Four individuals indicted for felony theft,
    filing false public records and payroll fraud
  • State to reimburse 89,000 to NHTSA

82
OTHER EXAMPLES OF FRAUD (CONTINUED) LAW
ENFORCEMENT IMPROPER REIMBURSEMENTS
  • SHSO provided overtime dollars to a law
    enforcement agency
  • Chief used the funds to cover gaps in the
    departments general operating expenses
  • Audit resulted from an anonymous tip
  • State investigation found 281 discrepancies.
  • State to reimburse 45,664 to NHTSA

83
Lack of Training to Supervisor and Officers
  • Training
  • Grant Management
  • Prevention

84
FRAUD RISK FACTORS MANAGEMENT/INTERNAL CONTROLS
  • Two of the most common contributing factors
  • Lack of communication regarding program
    management.
  • Lack of supervision in grant procedures.

85
FRAUD RISK FACTORS INTERNAL CONTROL
WEAKNESSES LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
  • Lack of training to supervisors and officers
  • Failure to emphasize the unique conditions of
    specific grant programs in recruitment and
    in-service courses.

86
FRAUD RISK FACTORS INTERNAL CONTROL
WEAKNESSES LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
  • Lack of supervision in grant procedures
  • Failure to provide oversight during overtime
    patrols.
  • Absence of a time and attendance quality control
    check that can easily identify log sheet
    falsification.

87
HOW DO INVESTIGATIONS HAPPEN?
  • Formal Complaints
  • Anonymous Tips
  • Investigating Agency
  • OIG
  • FBI
  • State Auditor or Internal Auditor
  • District Attorney
  • Considerations
  • Magnitude and Scope
  • Duration, Number of instances

88
Building Supervision into Grant Procedures
Effective Grant Activity Monitoring
89
Fraud Awareness and Financial Stewardship
  • Important Responsibility
  • A great partnership
  • Spread the word

90
Fraud Awareness and Financial Stewardship
  • Fraud was detected only in a small sample of
    departments but the investigation is expanding to
    additional regions.
  • Fraud is not limited to enforcement grants.
  • The ability to detect, prevent and respond to
    fraud is very important.

91
WHAT CAN GRANTEES DO!
  • Read your grant agreement and your terms and
    conditions in your grant.
  • Maintain written correspondence with OTS about
    any program or budget
    changes.
  • Keep well-organized and complete accounting books
    and records

92
Fraud Awareness and Financial Stewardship
  • QUESTIONS?

93
California Office of Traffic Safety LEL Contacts
  • Ed Gebing
  • Law Enforcement Liaison
  • Northern California Region
  • (916) 509-3027
  • Ed.Gebing_at_ots.ca.gov
  • Bill Ehart
  • Law Enforcement Liaison
  • Southern California Region
  • (916) 509-3028
  • Bill.Ehart_at_ots.ca.gov

93
94
  • OTS Regional Coordinator
  • Contact information is available at
  • http//www.ots.ca.gov
  • 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
  • Elk Grove, California 95758
  • 916-509-3030

94
95
(No Transcript)
96
2012-2013 Sobriety Checkpoint Grant Program
Pre-Operational Training Contractual and Claim
Requirements
By the University of California, Berkeley Safe
Transportation Research and Education Center
October November 2012
97
Agenda
  • Grant contract
  • On-line reporting of post-operational data
  • Due dates (post-operational data)
  • Claims
  • Due dates (claims)
  • Fact Blasts
  • SafeTREC contacts

98
Your Grant Contains Instructions for Filing
Claims with SafeTREC
  • The signatory page shows who can sign claims
  • Schedule A contains the Method of Procedure,
    Agency Objectives and Media Objectives which, if
    followed, ensures that your agency will remain in
    compliance throughout the grant period

98
99
Your Grant Contains Instructions for Filing
Claims with SafeTREC
  • Schedule B contains the limits for reimbursements
  • Schedule B-1 contains instructions for submitting
    a complete claims package

99
100
You Must Submit Operational Data to Be Reimbursed
  • Post-operational data must be reported on-line
    after the applicable quarter
  • SafeTrec will email instructions for reporting
    the operational data
  • Each agency will have a unique log-in and
    password
  • Agencies will be notified when the reporting
    system becomes available in January

100
101
Due Dates for Post-Operational Data
  • Submit post-operational data on-line by
  • January 25, 2013 for checkpoints conducted
    October January 1 (Quarter 1)
  • April 30, 2013 for checkpoints conducted January
    2 March 31 (Quarter 2)
  • July 31, 2013 for checkpoints conducted April 1
    June 30 (Quarter 3)
  • September 24, 2013 for checkpoints conducted July
    1 September 2 (Quarter 4)
  • (For checkpoints conducted September 2-30, please
    submit data by October 31)

101
102
IMPORTANT How to ensure a smooth claims process
  • Coordinate with the finance department to create
    a project code/account in the citys general
    ledger as soon as possible
  • The finance department must generate a ledger
    report(s) to support each claim (Excel
    spreadsheets only will not suffice)
  • The ledger report should support the claim
    amount. If the report does not match, please
    provide an explanation or it will significantly
    delay the reimbursement process.

102
103
How to ensure a smooth claims process
  • Use the Excel-based claim form for the 2012-2013
    Sobriety Checkpoint Program
  • Only SafeTREC can modify the claim form
  • The claim form will be available in January at
  • http//safetrec.berkeley.edu/checkpointgrants/2012
    _2013checkpoint.html
  • Typed or handwritten claims will not be accepted!

103
104
Not to Exceed Contractual Amounts (Part 1)
  • Your agency cannot exceed the
  • Grant award amount (grant signature page and
    Schedule B)
  • Maximum reimbursable amount for checkpoint
    supplies (Schedule B), if applicable

104
105
Not to Exceed Contractual Amounts (Part 2)
Your agency should abide by the cost per
checkpoint contractual amount however, with
prior authorization, your agency can exceed the
cost per checkpoint as long as the agency
completes all contractually obligated
checkpoints. Prior authorization can be obtained
by completing the Cost per Checkpoint Exception
form.
105
106
How to complete a claim
  • Complete these worksheets
  • Agency Info worksheet (one time only)
  • Claim Details for the applicable quarter
  • Checkpoint Supplies Details worksheet, if
    applicable
  • The claim form for the quarter will be populated
    automatically

106
107
How to complete a claim
  • Use the same Excel workbook (spreadsheets)
    throughout the grant period because
  • The Agency Information populates all quarters
    claims
  • The amounts claimed are carried forward from one
    quarter to the next

107
108
Filling in the Agency Info Worksheet
  • Use the address listed in Box C of the grant
    contract, i.e., the Agency Authorized to Receive
    Payments (notify SafeTREC if the address has
    changed)
  • SafeTREC will email the purchase order number

108
109
Filling in the Agency Info Worksheet
  • Fill in all requested dollar amounts so the
    formulas programmed into the spreadsheets will
    work!
  • Obtain the amounts from the grant contract
    document

109
110
See Sample Claim Handout
110
111
Requirements for FY 2013 Claims
  • Break out overtime benefits for each individual,
    excluding contract cities
  • Provide unburdened overtime costs, i.e.,
    without benefits
  • Ledger reports must support the claimed amount

111
112
Requirements for FY 2013 Claims
  • Complete a Checkpoint Supplies Form, if
    applicable
  • Ledger reports must show expenditures for
    checkpoint supplies

112
113
IMPORTANT
  • ONLY OTS-approved checkpoint supplies will be
    reimbursed. If your agency would like to purchase
    an item(s) that would be invaluable to the
    checkpoint and is not on the OTS-approved list,
    your agency will need to contact SafeTREC for
    email approval. Prior approval must be obtained
    before the item is purchased or the supply cost
    will be disallowed.

113
114
Checkpoint Supplies Form
  • See Sample Claim Handout

114
115
Completing the Claim
  • Obtain the correct signature
  • Anyone who signed in Boxes B or D on the grant
    document can sign the claim form
  • If the Authorizing Official changes, complete the
    Change in Authorizing Official form
  • To add another signatory, complete the Additional
    Signatory form
  • Please make sure that the signature is original
    (Copies or stamped signatures are not allowed)

115
116
After Completing the Claim, Submit the Claims
Package
Package
  • Claim
  • Claim Details
  • Checkpoint Supplies Form, if applicable
  • Overtime (OT) slips
  • Expenditure (or equivalent ledger) report
    supporting the claim amount
  • Checkpoint supplies invoices/receipts from the
    vendor (should include tax)
  • Cost per Checkpoint Exception Form, if applicable

116
117
The Claims Package for Contract Cities is
Different
  • Contract cities, excluding those agencies where
    the sheriffs department is administering the
    grant, must also provide
  • Invoice from the sheriffs department to the
    contract city for grant related services
  • The invoice (or attachment) must contain the
    contract rates that are the basis for the
    sheriffs departments invoiced amount

117
118
Overtime Slips Must be Complete
  • Signed by the employee and supervisor (stamped
    signatures are not acceptable)
  • Annotated, e.g., Sobriety Checkpoint Program, DUI
    Grant, or a finance dept-designated number
  • Show the start time, end time, and number of
    overtime hours
  • Show the checkpoint date

118
119
119
120
Overtime Slips Must be Complete
  • Any missing information on an OT slip will
    disqualify that slip
  • The overtime cost of the hours on disqualified
    OT slip (s) will be subtracted from the claim
    amount!!

120
121
Electronic Timesheet System
  • If your agency uses an electronic timesheet
    system, then submit the timesheets with a
    supervisor signature on the front of the packet
    to certify the overtime hours were worked

121
122
What Costs Are Allowable
  • Actual overtime cost for checkpoint operation(s)
  • Benefits accrued to overtime hours, e.g., Social
    Security, Workers Compensation, Medicare,
    state-run disability, unemployment insurance
  • Costs of OTS-approved checkpoint supplies at or
    below OTS-set unit prices, if applicable

122
123
What About Administrative Personnel
  • Administrative/clerical personnel are allowable
    only if they worked on the checkpoint operation,
    e.g., to process the larger than normal volume of
    citations and arrest/incident reports. These
    reports must be a result of the operation and
    required to be processed quickly for distribution
    to the courts and the District Attorney's Office,
    or to meet statutory time limits. Clerical
    overtime incurred before the checkpoint or more
    than one business day after the last day of the
    checkpoint is not allowable

123
124
What Costs Are NOT Allowable
  • Indirect costs
  • Contractual costs, e.g., the cost of a contract
    dispatcher (does not apply to contract city
    arrangements)
  • Checkpoint supplies that are not OTS-approved
  • Amounts of checkpoint supplies paid in excess of
    OTS-set unit prices

124
125
What Costs Are NOT Allowable
  • Retirement, vision insurance, life insurance,
    dental insurance, overhead fees, and other
    benefits that are not accrued to overtime hours
  • Meal allowances and uniform allowances

125
126
What Costs Are NOT Allowable
  • Unexpended funds cannot be transferred for use
    from one checkpoint operation to another without
    prior authorization

126
127
To be Reimbursed You Must
  • Report your post-operational data on-line
  • Submit the press release(s)
  • Mail in a complete claims package
  • Emailed/faxed claims are not accepted
    because we need the original signature

127
128
Claims Due Dates
  • February 15, 2013 for Quarter 1 Claim
  • May 15, 2013 for Quarter 2 Claim
  • August 15, 2013 for Quarter 3 Claim
  • October 31, 2013 for Quarter 4 Claim
  • (Be aware of your citys ledger/invoice
    administrative process timetable when
    planning checkpoints in Quarter 4)
  • Dont submit claims for 0 !!

128
129
Fact Blasts
  • Fact Blasts contain important information
    that pertains to the Sobriety Checkpoint Program
    and your agency will receive them throughout the
    grant cycle. Please read each Fact Blast
    thoroughly.

129
130
SafeTREC Contacts
  • Adrienne Moore
  • SafeTREC
  • 2614 Dwight Way, 7374
  • Berkeley, CA 94720-7374
  • (510) 643 7625
  • (510) 643 9922 (fax)
  • almoore_at_berkeley.edu
  • Olivia Pavelchik
  • SafeTREC
  • 2614 Dwight Way, 7374
  • Berkeley, CA 94720-7374
  • (510) 643 6556
  • (510) 643 9922 (fax)
  • obpavel_at_berkeley.edu
  • SafeTREC web site www.safetrec.berkeley.edu
  • General inquiries checkpoint_at_berkeley.edu

130
131
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Contacts
  • Ed Gebing
  • Law Enforcement Liaison
  • Northern California Region
  • (916) 509-3027
  • ed.gebing_at_ots.ca.gov
  • Bill Ehart
  • Law Enforcement Liaison
  • Southern California Region
  • (916) 509-3028
  • bill.ehart_at_ots.ca.gov

131
132
  • OTS Regional Coordinator
  • Contact information is available at
  • http//www.ots.ca.gov

132
133
  • OTS Regional Coordinators
  • For Information about General Traffic Safety
    Grants
  • Contact information is available at
  • http//www.ots.ca.gov
  • 2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
  • Elk Grove, California 95758
  • 916-509-3030

133
134
(No Transcript)
About PowerShow.com