Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out



									                                         HIGHWAY TO

                         JUSTICE                          SUMMER 2012

                            From The ABA and The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

dWI SatUratIon patrolS and enForCement QUotaS – a FIne lIne?

Hon. Neil Edward Axel                                                   stops. The use of saturation patrols, however, may raise issues
Judicial Outreach Liaison, NHTSA Region 3                               from time to time for the trial judge to consider.
Ellicott City, MD
                                                                        A recent case in Maryland points out that there may be a
According to statistics maintained by the National Highway Traffic      fine line between permissible saturation patrol performance
Safety Administration (NHTSA) more than 10,000 people died in           measures and illegal quotas that may impact the outcome of a
drunk driving crashes in the United States in 2010, accounting          DWI trial. In order to avoid a future cut-off of funding, the police
for 31% of all traffic deaths that year.1 In 2000, alcohol-related      agency quantified a performance measure for those officers
crashes in the United States cost the public in excess of $50           who volunteered to participate in the saturation patrol. The
billion in monetary costs and approximately $63 billion in quality      performance measure was set forth in a written memorandum
of life losses.2 Efforts to combat drunk driving have included          to the officers that stated that an average of 2-4 citations must
law enforcement, prosecution and adjudication, prevention,              be written hourly by each officer on the saturation detail.6 When
community outreach, and alcohol treatment to name just a                challenged in court, this performance measure was perceived
few.3 In the areas of law enforcement and prevention, one of            to be a quota requiring officers to write a minimum number of
the proven effective countermeasures against drunk driving is the       tickets in a given time frame. Although Maryland law does not
use of DWI saturation patrols.                                          prohibit quotas in general, it does prohibit the use of performance
                                                                        quotas as the “sole or primary criterion for promotion, demotion,
Saturation patrols involve law enforcement deploying additional         dismissal, or transfer” of a police officer.7 The trial court, however,
police officers to targeted roadways during select time periods         interpreted this provision more broadly and held that the grant
to detect and apprehend impaired drivers. Typically the use of          performance measure was a prohibited quota and suppressed
saturation patrols is publicized to the community in advance. The       the evidence obtained during and following the traffic stop.
purpose of this heavier police presence, coupled with advance
publicity, is to deter impaired driving by increasing one’s perceived   Although it is unlikely that future prosecutions will fail under
risk of arrest.4 This dual approach of enforcement and publicity        the above circumstances, judges may be called upon to decide
has been proven to be effective in saving lives and preventing          whether a police officer’s testimony is credible where grant
would-be drunk drivers from even getting behind the wheel of            funding requires the collection and reporting of arrest and
a car.5                                                                 citation statistics. In almost any trial, a judge is called upon to
                                                                        weigh a witness’s credibility. In weighing and assessing one’s
To encourage the use of saturation patrols and to assist States         testimony, judges apply their own common sense and every day
in meeting the costs of increased patrols and overtime for law          experiences to a number of factors including demeanor on the
enforcement officers, as well as the cost of publicity, Federal         witness stand, opportunity to observe, accuracy of the witness’s
grants have been awarded to local jurisdictions. These grants may       memory, motive, bias, and consistency with other evidence
require that the police agency report the number of arrests and         presented.8 In the case of saturation patrols, it is important for
citations issued on a quarterly basis. This reporting requirement is    judges to recognize and understand that grant funding typically
in place to ensure that tax dollars are well spent in programs that     requires the reporting of certain performance measures in order
are designed to prevent and detect impaired driving offenses.           to comply with the grant. Unlike in the recent Maryland case, it
Saturation patrols are legal in all 50 states, and do not present
many legal issues beyond those associated with routine traffic                                                        (continued on page 2)
editor’s note                                    Dwi saturatiOn patrOLs anD
                                                 enForCement QUotaS – a FIne lIne?
Highway to Justice is a publication of
the American Bar Association (“ABA”)
and the National Highway Traffic Safety          (continued from page 1)
Administration (”NHTSA”). The views
expressed in Highway to Justice are those of     is unusual for these performance measures to be quantified as a specific
the author(s) only and not necessarily those     requirement and conveyed to the officers on the street. The fact that
of the ABA, the NHTSA, or the government         performance measures exist should be only one of many factors for the
agencies, courts, universities or law firms      Court to consider in weighing the testimony of the arresting officer in a
with whom the members are affiliated.            DWI trial.
                                                 Similarly it is important for police agencies to be careful that their
We would like to hear from other judges. If      procedures do not convey, suggest or require the imposition of an illegal
you have an article that you would like to       quota, or set forth performance criteria that might call into question the
share with your colleagues, please feel free     objectivity or reliability of an officer’s observations, or his or her credibility.
to submit it for inclusion in the next edition
of Highway to Justice.                           ___________________________________________________________
To submit an article, please send it to Marc
Christopher Loro, Senior Legal Advisor, Office   2 Taylor, Dexter; Miller, Ted; and Cox, Kenya. “Impaired Driving in the United States Cost
of the Secretary of State, Department of           Fact Sheets.” Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002.
Administrative Hearings,
Please also copy Gena.Taylor@americanbar.        3 Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State
org.                                               Highway Safety Offices, Sixth Edition 2011, at page 1-3 (DOT HS 811 444).
                                                 4 Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State
The deadline for submission of articles for        Highway Safety Offices, Sixth Edition 2011, at page 1-20 (DOT HS 811 444).
the Fall, 2012 issue is August 22.               5 Countermeasures That Work: a Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State
                                                   Highway Safety Offices, Sixth Edition 2011, at page 1-20 (DOT HS 811 444).
                                                 6 Judge Throws Out DUI Case, Citing Quotas, The Baltimore Sun, January 6, 2012, at
                                                   page 1.
                                                 7 §3-504, Public Safety Article, Annotated Code of Maryland.
                                                 8 Maryland Pattern Jury Instructions MPJI-Cr 3:10 (1999).

                                                 Can iMpaireD Driving stakehOLDers
                                                 reaSon together?

                                                 Hon. Karl Grube
                                                 Florida Judicial Outreach Liaison
                                                 St. Petersburg, FL
                                                 Can local judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, po-
                                                 lice, driver license representatives, court clerks, and treatment providers
                                                 ethically meet to discuss Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Issues? Can
                                                 judges ethically organize and serve on stakeholder committees whose
                                                 purpose is to improve the delivery of justice in DUI and other traffic-re-
                                                 lated cases? There is evidence that judges can not only meet and work
                                                 with stakeholders but that they are ethically encouraged to do so.
                                                 The concept of criminal justice stakeholders meetings began some years
                                                 ago when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
                                                 invited representatives from the judicial, executive, and administrative
                                                 branches of state governments to discuss enforcement, prosecution, ad-
                                                 judication, supervision, sentencing and treatment issues involved in im-
                                                 paired driving cases. The purpose was to see if there were practices and

                                                      page 2
                                                                                                               (continued on page 3)
Can ImpaIred drIvIng StakeholderS reaSon together?

(continued from page 2)

approaches that could be implemented nationwide to improve                   Discussing DUI issues and resolving matters such as schedul-
the delivery of justice in impaired driving cases without compro-            ing and discovery is allowed, but discussing pending or im-
mising the independence of any of the various criminal justice               pending cases of individual defendants must be avoided.
system stakeholders.                                                         While the Florida Supreme Court Ethics Committee’s opinion
addressing Judicial ethics Concerns of meeting                               does not have precedential value in other states, it may how-
with Criminal Justice Stakeholders                                           ever be a valuable indication of how other ethics advisory
                                                                             committees would rule if presented with a similar inquiry.
The major concern regarding the concept of stakeholder meet-
                                                                             Other states that have already issued favorable judicial eth-
ings came from the judges. Would meeting with law enforce-
                                                                             ics opinions on stakeholder meeting issues include Illinois, in
ment, prosecutors, and defense attorneys compromise their in-
                                                                             Opinion 98-1, and South Carolina, in opinion 23-2006.
dependence and give the appearance of impropriety in so far as
discussing issues in the very cases that they were sworn to judge            Implementing dUI Stakeholders meetings
fairly and impartially? When judges are concerned about the                  One Florida state court that relied on Opinion 04-14 was the
ethical propriety of contemplated conduct, they can seek ethi-               Pinellas County Court, which serves Clearwater and St. Pe-
cal guidance from a number of sources. These sources include                 tersburg, Florida. Under the leadership of County Judge Wil-
the Code and Canons of Judicial Conduct, commentary to the                   liam Overton, stakeholders in the DUI adjudication process
Canons, treatises on ethics, reports of disciplinary committees              joined together to discuss the impact of the State’s manda-
and the opinions of ethics advisory committees that have been                tory Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (IID) law. In addition to
created to provide guidance to judges concerning contemplated                a demonstration of the device, prosecutors, criminal defense
extra-judicial activities.                                                   lawyers, probation officers and judges discussed in what cas-
Judges in Florida requested a judicial ethics advisory opinion be-           es the device would be mandated, how compliance would
fore deciding whether to consider gathering with criminal jus-               be monitored, and how violations of court ordered compli-
tice system stakeholders to discuss impaired driving issues. The             ance would be addressed and processed. The meeting also
request to the Florida Supreme Court Ethics Committee for an                 resulted in cooperative efforts to provide information to the
opinion posed the following question:                                        practicing bar and the public concerning the operation of the
                                                                             new law.
    “May a judge implement a local Criminal Advisory Com-
    mittee that would include representatives from the offic-                In conclusion, a criminal justice advisory committee, such
    es of the State Attorney and Public Defender, the criminal               as the one implemented in Florida, is an effective means of
    justice bar, the Sheriff’s department, local law enforce-                bringing stakeholders together to listen to and learn from
    ment, felony and misdemeanor probation departments,                      each other and to reason together and address common is-
    clerk of the court, court administrator’s office, the depart-            sues. It provides the opportunity to improve the delivery
    ment of motor vehicles, and drug and alcohol treatment                   of justice in DUI and other criminal traffic cases. Can DUI
    providers involved in the disposition of felony, misde-                  stakeholders reason together ethically? The answer is yes.
    meanor, and traffic cases?”                                              Perhaps just as important, the implementation of such stake-
                                                                             holder’s conferences should be encouraged.
a Favorable Judicial ethics advisory Opinion
Opens the Door                                                               _________________________________________________
                                                                             1 See the Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida, as amended
The answer of the Florida Supreme Court ethics advisory com-                 through July 3, 2008, and Canon 4: A Judge Is Encouraged to Engage in
mittee was “yes.” In its Opinion 04-14 the committee pointed out             Activities to Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of
that Canon 4B provides that a judge may speak, write, lecture,               Justice
teach, and participate in other quasi-judicial activities concern-
ing the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice             Editors Note: The University of Illinois at Springfield Institute for Legal,
                                                                             Legislative, and Policy Studies (ILLAPS) organized and held a DUI System
subject to the requirements of the Code.1 The commentary to
                                                                             Stakeholder conference on its campus on July 26th, 2011. Titled “Best Prac-
Canon 4B recognizes that as a judicial officer and person specially          tices for Sentencing, Supervising, Evaluating and Treating the DUI Offend-
learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute            er,” the Institute is launching a multi-year effort to reduce the recidivism
to the improvement of the law, the legal system, and the admin-              rate for DUI offenders in Illinois. Judges, probation officers, evaluators,
istration of justice and to the extent that time permits, a judge is         and treatment providers participated in multi-disciplinary discussions and
                                                                             small group activities towards a long term goal of improving public safety
encouraged to do so, either independently, or through a bar as-              through better DUI policy and practice in Illinois. As a follow up to the con-
sociation, judicial conference or other organization dedicated to            ference, a preliminary report of the conference’s results will be published
the improvement of the law. Opinion 04-14 came with a caveat:                this summer.

                                                                    page 3
DruggeD Driving: On everybODy’s raDar, part 2

Hon. Peggy Fulton Hora                                               crafted to ferret out these issues and ensure an unbiased
Judge of the Superior Court (Ret.)                                   jury venire.
Judicial Outreach Liaison, NHTSA Region 9
Walnut Creek CA                                                      Motions in limine regarding the arresting officer’s testimony
                                                                     are likely in a drugged driving case regarding the scientific
Part 1 of this article, published in the Spring, 2012 issue of       validity of tests such as HGN or Standard Field Sobriety Tests
Highway to Justice looked at the scope of the problem of             (SFSTs) as they relate to drugs other than alcohol. What
drugged driving, how drugs affect driving and how different          drugs, if any, cause HGN or Vertical Gaze Nystagmus (VGN)?
states have responded to the issue with per se and non-              Is the Daubert/Frye standard met with these tests as related
per se laws. The article may be found at: http://www.                to drugs?1 These are all issues likely to be raised by the               defense in a drugged driving test.
                                                                     SFSTs are validated for alcohol and consist of the Horizontal
Unique Legal Issues                                                  Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) test, Walk and Turn test, and One
                                                                     Leg Stand test. One court held HGN is a scientific test
There are unique legal issues that may arise in a drugged            subject to Frye;2
driving or combination alcohol and other drug case, such as:
                                                                     some courts say it satisfies Daubert and find it is acceptable
• suppression motions and other pre-trial matters                    scientific testimony.3 Eight states say it is just another SFST
                                                                     and not a scientific test at all. After the court determines
• public opinion about illicit drugs affecting jury voir dire        whether it is admissible and as what, they it must decide
                                                                     who can testify. If it is a SFST, then the arresting officer
• Daubert/Frye scientific evidence issues
                                                                     who administered it may testify. If it is a scientific test,
• the validity of field sobriety tests, including                          then expert testimony may be needed. And the
  Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN).                                             court should always be clear about the SFST’s
                                                                                applicability to drugs other than alcohol. For
• confrontation issues with lab results, and                                    instance, HGN is present with depressants but not
• admissibility of lay and/or expert opinion
                                                                                Bullcoming v. New Mexico4, the 2011 U.S.
The initial stop in a drugged driving case may be                                Supreme Court case regarding the admissibility
different from that seen in alcohol impairment                                     of forensic lab reports, is bound to raise many
cases. Does marijuana cause weaving? Speeding?                                       complications in conducting a trial for drugged
What’s the effect of Ambien? Cocaine? Is there                                        driving. That case said the prosecution may
an odor of marijuana, alcohol or both? Can                                            not introduce a forensic lab report containing
pill bottles be seized or a joint in an ashtray                                      a testimonial certification through the in-court
preserved for evidence? All these issues                                           testimony of another scientist. In other words,
and more could lead to suppression                                               the defendant has a right to be confronted with
issues necessitating a pre-trial                                               the analyst who made the certification (unless he
evidentiary hearing. The court                                              or she is unavailable at trial and the defendant has
will need to hear evidence from a                                          had an opportunity to cross-examine him or her prior
qualified witness on the issue of what                                   to trial.) This is contrary to the practice in many states
drugs affect driving and how that is                                     where a forensic toxicologist from a certified laboratory
exhibited.                                                                comes in and testifies about the validity of a result
                                                                           regardless of whether that scientist is the one who did
The ability to seat a fair jury is the
                                                                            the test. For jurisdictions in which the prosecutor’s
hallmark of due process in a trial.
                                                                             office sends tests out of state, that necessitates
There may be public attitudes about
                                                                               bringing in the lab worker from another state.
marijuana or other drugs that could
                                                                                 Since this is a relatively new case, it remains to be
affect this outcome. Do jurors think
                                                                                  seen what other ramifications may be presented.
marijuana is a “soft drug”? What
about “medical” marijuana? Is there a                                             Federal Rules of Evidence §701 allows “Lay
difference in a juror’s mind between                                              Opinion” testimony that is rationally based on
impairment caused by an over-the-                                                the perception of the witness and would be
counter or prescribed medication                                                helpful to a clear understanding of testimony of
compared to an illicit drug? Voir                                              witness, or determination of a fact in issue. It is
dire questions must be carefully
                                                                                                              (continued on page 6)

                                                                page 4
FunDing avaiLabLe FOr state JuDiCiaL                                         COntaCt inFOrMatiOn
OutreaCh LiaisOns
                                                                             To learn more about programs offered by
                                                                             NHTSA, please contact one of the following:

The Impaired Driving Division of the National Highway Traffic Safety         Hon. Neil Edward Axel, Judicial Outreach
Administration (NHTSA) is pleased to announce a funding opportunity          Liaison, Region 3 (North Carolina, Virginia,
for State Judicial Outreach Liaisons. The purpose of this grant program      Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
is to provide funding to State Highway Safety Offices (SHSOs) and/or         District of Columbia):
State Judicial Educators (SJEs) to create State Judicial Outreach Liaisons
(State JOLs) in their states. Through a competitive process, NHTSA will      Hon. Kent Lawrence, Judicial Outreach Liaison,
provide assistance for up to ten (10) JOL positions in an amount not to      Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South
exceed $50,000.00 per position. NHTSA funds will be used by the State        Carolina, Tennessee):
to support a State JOL for a period of 30 months.
                                                                             Hon. Thomas P. Panichi, Judicial Outreach
All SHSOs and SJEs within the United States are eligible to receive          Liaison, Region 5 (Minnesota, Wisconsin,
funding. Priority will be given to States that do not already have a State   Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois):
JOL or equivalent. To apply, please use this link:                       Hon. Keith Rutledge, Judicial Outreach
                                                                             Liaison, Region 7 (Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas,
These grant funds are intended to focus on the use of a State JOL who        Nebraska, Iowa):
can assist the SHSO and the judiciary in addressing impaired driving
and other traffic safety issues through the promotion of DWI Courts          Hon. Mary A. Celeste, Judicial Outreach Liaison,
and ignition interlock devices and court, sentencing and supervision         Region 8 (Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado,
practices, and judicial education regarding impaired driving and other       North Dakota, South Dakota):
traffic safety issues. States/agencies must also submit an assurance that
they will comply with the reporting requirements of this program, as well    Hon. Peggy Hora, Judicial Outreach Liaison,
                                                                             Region 9 (Arizona, California, Pacific
as any subsequent guidelines and regulations.

                                                                             Hon. Mary Jane Knisely, Judicial Outreach
                                                                             Liaison, Region 10 (Montana, Idaho, Oregon,
                                                                             Washington, Alaska):     maryjaneknisely@

                                                                             Hon. Harvey J. Hoffman, NCSCJ Judicial Fellow,

                                                                             Marc C. Loro, NCALJ Judicial Fellow, mloro@

                                                                             State JOLs:
                                                                             Florida: Hon. Karl Grube:
                                                                             Texas: Hon. Mark Atkinson: matkinson@

                                                           page 5
   appLiCatiOns nOw being aCCepteD                                                    Dates tO reMeMber
   FOr JuDiCiaL FeLLOws
                                                                                      august 15 – september 3, 2012
   National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)                             Impaired Driving
   Judicial Fellowships are excellent opportunities for members                       National Enforcement Crackdown
   of the Judicial Division to take part in judicial outreach and
   share expertise regarding traffic safety issues. The mission
   of the Judicial Fellow will be to serve as a conduit to deliver
   resources, research and educational opportunities available
   through NHTSA and its cooperative partners to judges and
   citizens in their jurisdictions and where possible, promote                        For more information visit:
   NHTSA’s priorities.                                                      
   Applications for the 2012-2013 Fellowship from the National
                                                                                      Motorcycle Safety - Drunk Riding Prevention
   Conference of Specialized Court Judges (NCSCJ) and National
   Conference of the Administrative Law Judiciary(NCALJ) are
   now being accepted. Please visit the NCSCJ website (www. or the NCALJ website (www.ambar.
   org/jd/ncalj) for a more detailed job description and the
   application. Deadline for applications is July 13, 2012.
   If you have questions on either of the opportunities, please
   contact Gena Taylor at 312.988.6716, 800.285.2221 ext.
   6716, or
                                                                                      Alcohol affects those skills essential to riding a
                                                                                      motorcycle - balance and coordination. So it plays a
                                                                                      particularly big role in motorcycle fatalities.
                                                                                      For Marketing Materials visit:
(continued fron page 4)                                                               Motorcycle+Safety/Stop+Impaired+Riding

not based on scientific, technical or specialized knowledge.                          For General NHTSA Information visit:
While it is clear that lay witnesses may offer an opinion on someone
else’s state of sobriety regarding alcohol, it is not clear whether a
lay witness may testify about someone being under the influence of                     June 18, 2012
other drugs. Might that require scientific, technical or specialized                  National Ride to Work Day
knowledge thus making a lay witness’s opinion inadmissible? One                       Share the Road with Motorcycles
court found “lay testimony of drug intoxication is questionable, thus
requiring expert testimony of effects and interactions.”5 DREs may
usually testify as expert witnesses in drug cases and whether their
conclusion as to an ultimate fact (i.e., was the person “under the
influence”) is admissible depends upon the state.
As the detection of drugged driving becomes more common and
as more prosecutors become willing to charge these cases, many
challenges will be presented to the trial court and much new law will
be created.
1 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Frye v. United
  States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
2 llinois v. McKown (2010), 236 Ill.2d 278, 924 N.E.2d 941.
3 See the trial record in the case of People v. Brightful, et al., docket no. K-10-   For Share the Road Materials visit:
  40259, Carroll County, Md.                                                
4 Bullcoming v. New Mexico 557 U.S. ___ (2011) (5:4). See a discussion of this        Motorcycle+Safety/Share+The+Road
  case in the Fall 2011 issue of Highway to Justice.
5 Commonwealth v. Griffith, 2009 PA Super 120 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2009)

                                                                             page 6
thanks tO brian ChODrOw                                                   useFuL inFOrMatiOn at
                                                                          yOur Fingertips
The American Bar Association Judicial Division National Conference
of Specialized Court Judges wishes to express its deep appreciation
to Mr. Brian Chodrow who has been the Program Manager for                 NCSA has released their Leading Cause of
the Cooperative Agreement between the National Highway Traffic            Death Fact Sheet. For the first time since
Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the ABA since the inception of          1981, motor vehicle crashes is not among
                                                                          the top ten causes of death in the US. Motor
the program. The growth of the program and its success would not
                                                                          vehicle crashes fell to number 11 overall.
have been possible without the support of NHTSA and its Program           Motor vehicle crashes are still the leading
Manager. Brian has worked tirelessly to advance understanding of          cause of death for children 8-11, youth 16-
issues faced by the judiciary in enforcing traffic safety laws. He has    20, and young adults 21-24.
been instrumental in providing information and resources needed
by the judiciary. His work has benefited judges throughout the  
country. We are indebted to him for his support of the ABA Judicial       Pubs/811620.pdf
Division, its mission and all judges.
Judge Kent Lawrence, a current Judicial Outreach Liaison, said the
following, “Brian Chodrow has for many years been viewed by               The Bureau of Justice Assistance has a
law enforcement officers, prosecuting attorneys, and judges as an         new publication available on Drug Courts.
invaluable resource to the legal system by providing continuing           The document lists a number of useful
information on current public safety issues for NHTSA on a national       resources.
level. In addition, Brian has proven to be an outstanding asset to both
Judicial Fellows and Judicial Outreach Liaisons. More importantly,        nij/238527.pdf
Brian Chodrow is a loyal servant of utmost integrity and outstanding
character. I am blessed to have worked with him over several years,
and particularly pleased to view him as a “good friend”.
                                                                          Using a cell phone while driving - whether
We appreciate his dedication to this project, and wish him the best       it’s hand-held or hands-free delays a driver’s
in his new assignment.                                                    reactions as much as having a blood alcohol
                                                                          concentration at the legal limit of .08 percent.
                                                                          (University of Utah)
weLCOMe saM sinCLair
                                                                          For more information on distracted
                                                                          driving, see
                            The National Highway Traffic Safety
                            Administration (NHTSA) recently named         *************************
                            a new manager for the Cooperative             Do you want to know more about ignition
                            Agreement with American Bar Association.      interlocks?
                            Sam Sinclair is now the manager of the
                            Judicial Fellowship – Judicial Outreach
                            Liaison project. Sam hails from Texas         driving/pdf/811246.pdf
                            originally, where he worked for the Texas
                            Department of Transportation’s Traffic
                            Safety Office. He has over eight years of
experience leading projects related to occupant protection, speed,
impaired driving, traffic records, and select traffic enforcement.
He joined the NHTSA Impaired Driving Division in September of
2011 and is looking forward to working with the ABA to continue
the successful judicial outreach effort. Outside of work Sam enjoys
playing golf, long distance running, and spending time in Washington
DC’s various parks with his wife Halley and their two miniature
schnauzers, Dutch & Vito.

Our long standing NHTSA manager, Brian Chodrow, will be taking
over emerging initiatives in the Impaired Driving Division, such as
drugged driving and developing a traffic safety leadership model.

                                                            page 7

To top