A PfiELIMINARY STUDY OF THE ESSUANC£ 01‘ THE WRITTEN WARNING BY STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN CER'E’AEN VEOLAT!0NS OF TRAFFIC LAWS Thesis for flu Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Thomas H. Milldebrandt 1964 MSU LIBRARIES ”- RETURNING MATERIALS: ace 1n oo rop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if booE is returned after the date stamped beIow. W) 6/ x9546 A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING BY STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF TRAFFIC LAWS BY Thomas H. Milldebrandt AN ABSTRACT OF A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1964 I r'uj _ a APPROVED 1(4); .. L. '~ j Q ,; (,1. .. RaYmond T. Galvin (Chairman) A (Member) '7 / C j 7"” ’/ -— ‘I ’ t .. , ': ,. i ’l ‘ ._ , , . \4/ (,1 (_ L. L4- /{ c- AQ ‘ 24" 1' (L .7 —' fi—' fr ”(J6 (Member) ABSTRACT A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING BY STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF TRAFFIC LAWS by Thomas H. Milldebrandt A controversy currently exists over the place of the written warning in traffic law enforcement programs. This study investigated the extent to which written warnings are now used by state traffic law enforcement agencies and the opinions of the executives of those agencies as to the advantages and disadvantages of using such a system. bepart- mental policies regarding enforcement criteria have also been collected and included. The principal means of gathering the desired infor- mation was an eighteen-question, two-page questionnaire sent to executives of the forty-nine state traffic law en- forcement agencies (Hawaii had no state-level police agency). Three authorities in the field of traffic enforcement were personally interviewed. A review of the existing literature on the subject completed the research. Thomas H. Milldebrandt Forty-eight of the forty-nine state traffic law en— forcement agencies contacted replied; only one did not. Thirty-three (68.7 per cent) of the agencies used the written warning as a part of their traffic enforcement programs while the remaining fifteen agencies (31.3 per cent) did not. Fifty—two per cent of the state police agencies used the system and forty-eight per cent did not. Highway Patrol agencies showed a much higher percentage of use with eighty- four per cent using the system and only sixteen per cent not using it. No consistent relationship exists between geo— graphic location and use of the system. A definite trend toward its use was noted in agencies organized less than twenty-five years ago. Two agencies which did not use written warnings indicated that if the statutes permitted they would favor using the system. None of the agencies currently using the system wanted to discontinue its use. Enforcement standards varied considerably. Two states included detailed enforcement guides with their replies, while the majority of agencies indicated their criteria were largely the judgment and discretion of the individual officer. All agencies attempted to mold this judgment either by training their officers or by preparing written regulations or both- Thomas H. Milldebrandt The most common advantages of the written warning system cited by the responding agencies were that such a program (1) benefits a driver improvement program; (2) makes for additional contacts by field officers; (3) promotes good public relations; and (4) permits some degree of enforcement when evidence necessary for prosecution is not available. The most common disadvantages cited were that such a program (1) is used by some officers as a means of escaping the responsibility of issuing a ticket in cases clearly calling for such action; (2) has little effect unless backed up by possible suspension action; (3) is difficult to apply uni- formly; and (4) creates the feeling in the violator who re- ceives a ticket that he is being discriminated against. It was concluded that there is need for further re— search into use of the written warning system with par- ticular emphasis on the effect of the written warning on future driving behavior and the extent and method of use of the system by municipal law enforcement agencies. A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING BY STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN CERTAIN VIOLATIONS OF TRAFFIC LAWS BY Thomas H. Milldebrandt A THESIS Submitted to the College of Social Science Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Police Administration and Public Safety 1964 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank Mr. Glenn Schultz for the helpful suggestions he contributed from the start of this research project and the many hours of his personal time which he freely gave in its initial stages. Also, I wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Ray Galvin, my graduate advisor; without his help during the final stages of the project completion would have been doubtful. A special note of thanks is made to Dr. Thomas Farrell who carefully edited rough and preliminary drafts for English construction and format style. A special expression of appreciation is extended to the Automotive Safety Foundation, under whose Fellowship this study was made possible, and Superintendent G. O. Hathaway, of the Arizona Highway Patrol, who granted me a leave of absence, with pay, in order to take advantage of the Automotive Safety Foundation Fellowship. Most sincere thanks also are extended to my wife Joanne who struggled on the project with me from the first rough outline to the wrapping of the final draft for mailing. ii CHAPTER I. II. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Importance of the Study . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . History of the Controversy over the Written Warning . . . . . . . . A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . Wichita Study . . . . . . . . . . Method of Study . . . . . . Results of Study . . . . . . Wilson's Subsequent Comments on the Study . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Wichita Study and Wilson's Comments . . . . . Baker Study . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Baker Study . Some Facts and Opinions Reflected by State Agencies . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Comments by State Law Enforcement Authorities . iii PAGE 10 ll l3 l4 l6 16 18 CHAPTER Position of International Association of Chiefs of Police Traffic Division . . Franklin M. Kreml . . . . . . . . . Ray Ashworth . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernard Garmire . . . . . . . . . . Traffic Institute, Traffic Law Enforcement Series . . . . . . . . Evaluation of Published Traffic Division Comments . . . . . . . . President's Conference Report and Current Literature . . . . . . . . . . Report of Committee on Enforcement, President's Highway Conference . . Current Literature . . . . . . . . . Evaluation of President's Conference Report and Current Literature . . The WOrk of Maxwell Halsey in Michigan . Evaluation of the work of Maxwell Halsey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Over-all Evaluation of Available Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. EXTENT OF THE USE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING . . Number and Type of State Agency Using and Not Using . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy of Old vs. New Agencies . . . . . Use by Geographic Location . . . . iv PAGE l9 19 20 20 21 22 23 23 24 26 27 3O 31 33 33 36 37 CHAPTER IV. VARIOUS FORMS AND USES OF THE WRITTEN WARNING . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Forms .,. . . . . . . . Information Required . . . . Use of Safety Message . . . Notification Information . Uses Made of the Written Warning Used as Part of the Driver's Record Used as a Legal Basis for Future En- forcement or Administrative Action Length of Time Kept on File . . V. AGENCY ENFORCEMENT CRITERIA . . , . Disregard Violation . . . . . . Oral Warning . . . . . . . . . . Written Warning . . . . . . . Ticket . . . . . . . . . . . . . Judgment of Officer . . . . . Definition of Policy . . . . VI. ADVANTAGES TO THE USE OF THE WRITTEN Advantages Cited by Agencies Not the Written Warning . . . . . Advantages Cited by Agencies Using the Written Warning . . . . . . . General Comments on Advantages of the Written Warning . . . . . Most Common Advantages Cited . . WARNING Using PAGE 46 46 47 47 48 49 49 49 50 51 51 52 53 56 58 59 61 61 62 64 68 CHAPTER VII. DISADVANTAGES TO THE USE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Disadvantages Cited by Non—Written Warning Agencies . . . . . . . . . . Disadvantages Cited by Agencies Using the Written Warning . . . . . . . . . Most Common Disadvantages Cited . . . General Comments on Disadvantages of the Written Warning . . . . . . . . . . . VIII. ANALYSIS OF THE NUMERICAL DATA . . . . . . IX. LEGAL STATUS OF THE WRITTEN WARNING . . . X. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . Results of Study . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Need for Further Study . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi PAGE 69 69 7O 72 73 77 80 83 83 85 88 93 97 TABLE II. III. IV. LIST OF TABLES Use of Written Warning by State Agency . State Traffic Law Enforcement Agencies with Date of Origin . . Use of Written Warning by Age of Agency Enforcement Contacts, Defective Vehicle Equipment Notifications Issued, 1959 1959 vii PAGE 34 4O 42 116 118 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Geographic Distribution of Use of the Written Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 2. Geographic Distribution of Use of the Written Warning in Relation to State and Provincial Section Regions . . . . . . . 45 viii LIST OF APPENDICES TITLE PAGE APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Research Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Preparation of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . 99 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Basis of Question Selection . . . . . . . . . 100 Circulation of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 103 Selection of Agencies to be Polled . . . . . . 103 Selection of Method of Circulation . . . . . . 103 Questionnaire Follow-Up Request . . . . . . . . . 104 Evaluation of Information from Questionnaire . . . 105 Personal Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 APPENDIX B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Covering Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 FolloweUp Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 APPENDIX C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Enforcement Contacts, 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Defective Vehicle Equipment Notifications Issued in 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 ix TITLE PAGE APPENDIX D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Defective Vehicle Equipment Notification . . . . . 121 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM It is essential that traffic law enforcement officers use every means at their command to bring about voluntary compliance with traffic laws, which is the basic purpose of all traffic law enforcement. It is the purpose of this study to (l) compile accurate, authoritative information on the extent and method of the use of written warnings in the enforcement of traffic laws; (2) show that the use of the written warning has a definite place in state traffic law enforcement; (3) demonstrate that, although the use of a warning may be considered contrary to the basic principles of law enforcement in general, it definitely contributes to more effective traffic law enforcement; (4) demonstrate that the written warning is being used with success in many areas; and (5) establish that, no matter what its final disposition, many agencies feel that the written warning has a deterrent effect upon the recipient. II. IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY This problem is one that (1) has been subjected to little objective national study, if the published literature is any criterion; (2) is considered to be of first priority for research by the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police; (3) requires research to determine if the use of the written warning (a) increases the number of possible contacts between law enforcement officers and the motoring public and (b) tends to demonstrate to the motoring public that traffic law enforcement agencies are more interested in securing voluntary compliance to traffic laws than in traffic violation convictions. III. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY This study was confined to the written warning as used by state traffic law enforcement agencies. Although it makes extensive use of the opinions of authorities in the traffic and legal fields, all information of a statistical nature has been gleaned from a comprehensive questionnaire designed by the researcher but sent out under the auspices of G. O. Hathaway, Superintendent of the Arizona Highway Patrol and Chairman of the Sub-committee on Research Projects of the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. This study has avoided the question of the effective— ness of the written warning in influencing the future driving behavior of the recipient. Such a study would re- quire extensive interviewing and records analysis, the facilities for which are not available at this time. It is hoped that enough information on the use of the written warnings has been collected in the course of preparing this thesis so that a research study in the area of effectiveness will have a sufficient foundation upon which to build. IV. DEFINITION OF TERMS For the purpose of this research (1) the written warning has been defined as any written notice of violation not requiring judicial actions, given to a traffic law violator, which may or may not become a part of his driving record. (2) The term "oral warning" as used in this re— search project has been defined as a word-of—mouth admoni- tion from an officer to a violator whom he has stopped for a violation. No other action but the oral reprimand or expla- nation is taken by the officer. (3) A state traffic law en-- forcement agency has been defined as those agencies in the various states which have statutory responsibilities to en_ force the state traffic regulations. (4) The term "ticket" has been defined as any traffic arrest action in which the recipient of the notification arising out of this action is required to undergo any judicial action. This judicial action may range from a formal court appearance before a magistrate to a letter addressed to a magistrate or violations bureau. In the preparation of the questionnaire for this study, the term "complaint" was used instead of a "ticket," but the terminology is being changed at this time as it has been discovered that the term "complaint" in a majority of areas pertains to a written complaint signed be— fore a magistrate requesting that an arrest warrant be issued. A "ticket" is called a "citation," "summons," and "traffic arrest" in various areas of the United States. (5) A "defective vehicle equipment notice" has been defined as a written form used by traffic law enforcement agencies to gain compliance with sections of the various motor vehicle codes which relate to mechanical equipment. These notices do not require formal judicial action, but may re— quire the recipient to have his vehicle inspected or re- paired by an authorized agency or, in some cases, at any service station. (6) A non-written warning agency is de- fined as an agency which may or may not issue written warnings for vehicle equipment violations but does not issue them for any other violations of the motor vehicle code. V. HISTORY OF THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE WRITTEN WARNING The subject of the written warning is and has been of concern to the International Association of Chiefs of Police and traffic law enforcement agencies for a number of years. In this chapter a short history of the controversy over the written warning is offered in order to set the remainder of the study in perspective. Although the written warning has been used for many years by some state law enforcement agencies,1 it first came under discussion as a matter of official business by the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police in 1956.2 In that year, the Traffic Committee of the Association took the following policy stand on the subject: The issuance by law enforcement officers of written warnings to violators of the motor vehicle laws is of doubtful value and places the officer and his department in the position of condoning or minimizing law violations. The better rule would seem to be to make an arrest whenever a definite, clearcut, substantial violation of law is detected and to resolve the doubt in favor of the motorist where borderline, technical, or trivial violations are involved. This policy was adOpted by the Association as a whole and was not again discussed until the mid-year meeting of the Traffic Committee held in June, 1958, when the committee was asked by the Arizona Highway Patrol and others to reconsider the policy. Reconsideration was asked on the grounds that written warnings did, in fact, have value in bringing about voluntary compliance with traffic laws. It was specifically 1See below, page 16. 2International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police Yearbook, 1959 (Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1959), p. 241. 3Ibid., p. 241. pointed out that when written warnings were legitimate contacts by the police and recorded against the motor vehicle operator's record, credit should have been given to the issuing organization in the Annual Inventory.4 After discussion of the item in the June, 1958 meeting, the Traffic Committee voted that "for reasons of lack of uniformity throughout the nation, and the dubious deterrent effect of the written warnings, the Traffic Com- mittee reaffirms its action of 1956 that no credit be given for the use of written warnings in the Annual Inventory.5 Most recent action on the subject of the written warning was taken in the mid—year meeting of the Traffic Committee in 1959. At that time, a Sub-committee on Re- search Projects was appointed to look into items which should receive research effort. This action grew out of the 4The Annual Inventory referred to is the National Safety Council Annual Inventory of Traffic Safety Activities. State traffic law enforcement agencies report, on specified forms and in a specified manner, their enforcement activities annually and these reports are compiled and analyzed by the National Safety Council. The National Safety Council then furnishes each state, which reports to them, an analysis of their enforcement efforts. This Annual Inventory is not a static report but, on the contrary, is under constant evalu— ation and investigation by the National Safety Council and several groups that act in an advisory capacity to the Council on the various sections of the Inventory. In the case of the Traffic Supervision Section of the report, the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police is the advisory body. For this reason, any changes regarding the written warning would have to be passed upon by the Traffic Committee before they could be acceptable items in the Annual Inventory. 51bid. belief of the members of the committee that various areas in traffic law enforcement were in need of extensive research and that in order to guide agencies such as the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, and the Field Services Division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, who carry on research service activities for the police, the Traffic Committee itself should determine which areas were in most need of research efforts. To this end the sub—committee decided upon a total of sixteen subjects to be studied. They divided these areas into two sub- sections, Number One Priority and Number Two Priority. The subject of written warnings was listed in the areas which deserved Number One Priority.6 It was because of this high- ranking priority that the subject of the written warning was selected for this research project. 6International Association of Chiefs of Police, Police Yearbook, 1960 (Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1960), pp. 253-54. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A review of the available literatureoon the use of warnings in traffic law enforcement was conducted at the Michigan State University Library. Most of the material relating to the subject was found in the Highway Traffic Section of that library. Material concerning both oral and written warnings was studied and it was found that few of the twenty-nine sources dealt with the subject of the written warning as defined for this study. As the litera- ture on this subject appears to be limited, this chapter will attempt to review all of the available material in an effort to establish as broad a base as possible for the data gathered in the present study. I. WICHITA STUDY In 1939, the Wichita Police Department, under the direction of Chief O. W. Wilson, conducted a study which was intended to determine the relative effectiveness of the various devices then being used by the police to control the automobile driver.7 The study was conducted in cooperation with the Works Progress Administration and examined police enforcement efforts, accident records, and drivers“ records in Wichita from 1933 to 1939.8 The Wichita Study covered two broad areas: (1) The accident expectancy of various groups of drivers, and (2) the effectiveness of various types of treatment used by the police in an attempt to bring about voluntary compliance 9 with traffic laws. The second part of the Wichita study is of particular interest to the subject of written warnings. Method of Study The records of drivers were checked and the drivers were divided into three groups: (1) those that had received warnings and fines; (2) those that had received warnings and traffic school treatment; and (3) those that had received fines and traffic school treatment.10 "In an effort to cancel any variation in violation proneness which might be present in groups selected on the basis of treatment, pairs of groups were chosen, each pair of which had been subjected 7O. W. Wilson, "Police Control of the Automobile Driver," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXX (May— June, l939--March—Apri1, 1940), p. 83. BIbid. 9Ibid., p. 85. lOIbid., p. 91. 10 to the same treatment procedure but in reverse order.”11 These groups were paired off according to the sequence of the treatment action. All those who received first a warning and then a fine were in one pair, those who received first a fine and then a warning in another pair; similar pairings were made for the groups receiving the other two types of treatment.12 Results of Study "The percentages of the groups which did not repeat within 365 days were tabulated. The greater the percentage who did not repeat, the more effective the particular treat- ment was assumed to be."13 The results of the study showed that, "as measured in terms of the percentages of violators who do not repeat within a given time, the warning is less effective than the arrest, and traffic school treatment is markedly more effective than arrest."l4 For purposes of the study, "arrest“ meant an arrest which resulted in a fine or jail sentence for the violator. The summary of the report pointed out that "while the warning notice is of least effectiveness, in view of its llIbid. ll _1ow administrative cost to the public much greater use should be made of this treatment device."15 Wilson's Subsequent Comments on the Study Since leaving the Wichita Department, 0. W. Wilson has commented extensively on the study in two books dealing with police administration procedures, Police Administration and Police Planning. In Police Administration he cited the results of the study and pointed out that the effectiveness of police action cannot be determined exclusively in terms of the effect on the individual against whom the action was taken. He felt that it extends with gradually diminishing force to others.16 He wrote that the total cost of treatment pro- cedures must be studied including: (1) "total salaries and other administrative costs," and (2) "cost of loss of public sympathy and support which may be incurred by unjustified or unreasonably severe punishment."l7 He felt that "the warn— ing notice has the least cost in both respects,‘ as an officer will issue a larger number of warnings than tickets and resentment from warnings is outweighed by the good will induced.18 15Ibid., p. 95. 16O. W. Wilson, Police Administration (New York: McGraweHill Book Company, 1950), p. 163. l7Ibid., p. 164. 18Ibid. 12 Also in Police Administration Wilson has pointed out that written warnings should always be used instead of oral warnings because they exert a more effective influence on the driver and also aid in recording the incident for guidance in the disposition of future violations.19 Here he introduced the elements of the "notice of violation" which has many of the aspects of the written warning and will be described in the discussion of the work of Maxwell Halsey. Wilson summed up his discussion of the Wichita study in Police Administration by saying that the study indicated that, contrary to popular opinion, punitive action alone (ticket) "did not ensure against an increase in accidents."20 He cited corroborating evidence from a study conducted in Lancashire, England, from 1932 to 1939.21 The Wichita study established that Wichita, from 1934 to 1936 with an en- forcement index22 of ten, sustained 1,647 personal injury accidents as compared to 1,416 during the following three- year period when the department had an enforcement index of less than four.23 19Ibid., p. 165. 20110151., p. 171. 2lipid. 22 Enforcement index is the ratio of convictions for moving violations to personal injury motor-vehicle traffic accidents. . 23Wilson, loc. cit. 13 In Police Planning Wilson recorded the following four advantages which he had found the written warning to have over the oral warnings: 1. Provides, when filed in driving record, a complete permanent record of the individual's driving history. 2. Establishes proof of occurrence since it is signed. 3. Has a more salutary effect as the driver gets a copy. 4. Serves as an accurate measure of officers' per- 24 formance and stimulates activity. Police Planning also presents a further discussion of the "notice of violation" system, a system which has all the elements of the written warning but carries the en- forcement action farther than the written warning as defined in this study.25 Evaluation of the Wichita Study and Wilson's Comments The Wichita Study was the first published effort made to test the effectiveness of the warning and no subse- quent attempt has been made to scientifically test the effectiveness of the written warning on future driving behavior. 24O. W. Wilson, Police Planning (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1957), p. 155. 25 Ibid. 14 Testing the relative effect of different types of enforcement action (or as Wilson calls it, "treatment") involves so many variables that any truly scientific re— search is extremely difficult. While the Wichita Study attempted to control some of these variables, it failed to take into account, among other things, variations in exposure, possible educational experiences, and variations in congestion. When discussing the low administrative costs of the written warning, the study fails to point out how these costs were determined and just what the difference is administratively between ticket enforcement action and warning enforcement action. II. BAKER STUDY Newman F. Baker, then counsel of the Traffic Insti- tute, Northwestern University, reported in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology a study on traffic tickets 26 which he conducted in 1939. He found that at that time there was little or no uniformity in the form, style, or content of the various written warning forms.27 Baker asked the question, "Just how effective are these warnings, so easily given and cheaply administered?"28 26Newman F. Baker, "Traffic Tickets," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXX (May-June, l939--March- April, 1940), p. 386. 27Ibid., p. 391. 281bid., p. 392. 15 (He referred to the Wichita Study which had maintained that the written warnings were cheaply administered.) Mr. Baker said that law enforcement officials should know the answer to this question and he hoped that some day there might be devised a means of correlating the written warning's use to the problem of traffic safety. While collecting the various forms of tickets and warnings then in use, Baker also secured the opinions of the law enforcement administrators on the place of the written warning in traffic law enforcement. At that time Baker felt that the administrator's feelings could be summed up in these words, "Yes, we use warning tags but they aren't much good. It's all just a bluff, nothing is ever done about them."29 Baker felt that the effectiveness of written warn- ings can be studied with considerable accuracy as their effect can be measured against accident indices and safety records.30 He felt that a study of the relative effects of tickets and warnings would produce much good, not only to traffic safety, but in law enforcement in general, as he believed the general research in crime cures had been rather unproductive because of the lack of scientific proof.31 291bid. 3OIbid., p. 393. 3lIbid. 16 Evaluation of Baker Study The Baker study did not attempt to establish any new ideas, but was designed primarily to determine what types of traffic violation forms were currently being used by traffic law enforcement agencies. Baker concluded that there was need for uniformity in forms, but that before this could be accomplished it should be determined what types of en- forcement action are effective and what is the best way to implement that action. As Baker said, ". . . this, of course, requires the sober evaluation of the police tech- niques in traffic cases."32 III. SOME FACTS AND OPINIONS REFLECTED BY STATE AGENCIES Wilbur S. Smith and Charles S. LeCraw in the Traffic Quarterly reported that in 1947 only one state traffic law enforcement agency reported it was using a ticket-only system.33 In this report there was no expla- nation of what other types of enforcement action were being taken. In their book entitled State Traffic Law Enforcement, published in 1944, George E. Miller and David M. Baldwin 321bid., p. 403. 33Wilbur S. Smith and Charles S. LeCraw, Jr., "Speed Laws and Enforcement," Traffic Quarterly, I (April, 1947), p. 129. 17 cited the wisdom of using warnings as a preliminary edu— cational campaign preceding enforcement of new regu- lations.34 They noted the current opinion that state legis- lation did not provide for warnings but that an Opposing view held that for an enforcement program to be effective it must have public support and that the warning can gain that type of support.35 Baldwin and Miller reiterated the views of Wilson and Baker in saying that the value of the use of warnings by traffic officers is extremely difficult to measure.36 Baldwin and Miller also went into the use of a "notice of violation" and expressed the belief that "the use of the written warning has a lasting effect on the violator and this effect may be improved by omitting the word 'warning' and substituting 'notice of violation'."37 In an address before the annual meeting of the Institute of Traffic Engineers in 1951, then Chief of the Washington State Patrol, James A. Pryde said, “A well trained officer attempts to secure compliance by other means 34George E. Miller and David M. Baldwin, State Traffic Law Enforcement (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1944). p. 166. 3SIbid. 36Ibid., p. 165. 37Miller and Baldwin, loc. cit. ~l8 than arrest. For examples: verbal instructions, guidance . "38 and warnings. In 1958, Commissioner Larry Beier of the Wisconsin Patrol was quoted as saying: We do not believe that warnings are an effective way to handle minor or borderline cases. Such warnings increase our contacts with drivers. They help convince many drivers that our primary purpose in highway patrol activities is to encourage volun— tary compliance with the traffic laws.39 Evaluation of Comments by State Law Enforcement Authorities It can be noted from the above comments that virtu- ally all of the state traffic law enforcement agencies have been using some type of warning system for many years and that the authorities quoted felt that warnings did have a definite place in an enforcement program. What is notice- ably lacking is any concrete evidence to support the opinions of those in favor of the written warning system or, by the same token, evidence to back up those who feel the warning has no place in traffic enforcement. It is apparent that there is divided opinion on the merits of the written warning although neither side has been able to advance evidence to support its views. 38James A. Pryde, "Enforcement Must Be Planned," Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1951 Proceedings (Los Angeles: Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1952), p. 4. 39"When the Law's Around Drivers Take Care," Traffic Safety, LII (April, 1958), p. 55. 19 IV° POSITION OF INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF POLICE TRAFFIC DIVISION Franklin M. Kreml Franklin M. Kreml was the first director of the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University and is presently Director of the Transportation Center, Northwestern Uni- versity, of which the Traffic Institute is a division. At the time that he was Director of the Institute he was also Director of the Traffic Division of the International Associ— ation of Chiefs of Police. Kreml, the author of Chapter 10, "Traffic Super- vision," of Municipal Police Administration, stated there that "Traffic law enforcement . . . is promoted through the use of written warnings in lieu of traffic arrests to correct many minor defects or omissions."40 In 1958, Kreml wrote in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science that: Traffic law enforcement should employ the many well-developed techniques to make itself effective. In addition to citation and arrest activity, it should make intelligent use of admonitions, written warnings and instruction to pedestrians and drivers. 40Institute for Training in Municipal Administration, Municipal Police Administration (fourth edition; Chicago: The International City Managers Association, 1954), p. 350. 41Franklin M. Kreml, “Police.Prosecutors, and Judges," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCXX (November, 1958), p. 43. 20 RayiAshworth Ray Ashworth, former Director of the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, and later Director of the Field Services Division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, wrote in 1957 that: Enforcement comes from the written warning, useful for minor or borderline violations. Here the citizen is informed, for instance, that he has been driving too fast, there is insufficient evidence to make an arrest, but that he is being warned. He is given a copy of it and told it will be filed at police head— quarters. Enforcement like this has been found to have good effect on driver behavior over a period of time. 2 Bernard Garmire Bernard Garmire is currently Chief of Police, Tucson, Arizona and Chairman of the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. He is a long-time member of the Traffic Committee and served as vice- chairman for three years prior to taking over chairmanship in 1960. While Chief of Police in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Garmire authored an article in which he stated that as a supplement to a selective enforcement program in Eau Claire he had instituted a written warning system which he believed 42 Ray Ashworth, "Traffic Safet Through Enforcement," N.L.G.I. Spokesman, XX (January, 1957 , p. 28. 21 had beneficial results.43 He believed that it was generally acknowledged that there is a certain percentage of violators who are "violation prone". He believed that this group of drivers constantly cheat a few miles per hour on speed limits and are prone to slide through stop signs and commit other "minor" violations. He stated, "It was this group together with the careless drivers, which was thought of when establishing the warning system."44 Under the system instituted by Garmire, if an indi— vidual was warned three times within a six—month period he was arrested on a warrant charging him with the violations listed on the most recent warning and the others were used as evidence of the contention that the driver involved deserved court action.45 Traffic Institute, Traffic Law Enforcement Series The Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, is the official training agency of the Traffic Division, Inter- national Association of Chiefs of Police and, as a service to the Association, publishes a series of basic training manuals, The Traffic Law Enforcement Series. One manual, 43Bernard L. Garmire, "Traffic Administration in Eau Claire," The Traffic Digest and Review, I (August, 1953)! p. 50 44Ibid. 4SIbid. 22 Taking Enforcement Action, deals with the problem of arrest, citation, and warning.46 In this manual these three degrees of Traffic en- forcement action are dealt with in considerable detail. The reader is instructed that judgment and departmental policy play a large part in determining what type of en— forcement action should be taken in a given situation.47 This manual differentiates between oral and written warnings and a 1956 policy statement of the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police is printed at the end of the manual to give the reader the benefit of the 48 Committee's feelings on the subject. (This policy is dealt with in some detail in Chapter I). Evaluation of Published Traffic Division Comments The two Directors of the Traffic Division and the Traffic Institute recommend the use of the written warning in traffic law enforcement. The present Chairman of the Traffic Committee of the Association has had actual suc— cessful experience; the Traffic Institute has seen fit to devote a large portion of a training manual to a discussion of the proper use of the system. 46TakingEnforcement Action, Traffic Law Enforcement Series, Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, 1959, p. 9. 47Ibid., p. 4. 481bid., p. 9. 23 These comments by Traffic Division spokesmen and the published training manual, Taking Enforcement Action, express opinions which are inconsistent with the policy statement of the Traffic Committee of the Association. Also missing in the comments of the Traffic Division is any reference to research which has shown: (1) the extent of use of the written warning in traffic law enforcement, and (2) the effect of the issuance of a written warning on the subsequent driving behavior of the recipient. V. PRESIDENT'S CONFERENCE REPORT AND CURRENT LITERATURE Report of Committee on Enforcement, President's Highway Safety Conference In 1949 the Committee on Enforcement of the Presi- dent's Highway Safety Conference issued a report which, in part, dealt with the use of warnings in traffic law en- forcement.49 The section concerning warnings began, "The traffic officer's productivity can be increased if a warn- ing system is intelligently used."50 It was stressed that this action should not be substituted for arrests where 49The President's Highway Safety Conference, Report of Committee on Enforcement (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1949), p. 15. SOIbid. 24 violations are serious or intentional but the report advo- cated their use in minor or borderline cases where it was felt that they could be very educational.51 The report repeated the View expressed by Miller and Baldwin in State Traffic Enforcement that warnings should be part of an educational program in helping to introduce to the driving public additions or alterations to traffic regulations.52 The Committee strongly urged that when warnings were used they should be written and made part of the driver's permanent driving record so that repeaters could be spotted quickly and necessary improvement action instituted.53 The Committee expressed the View that unless warnings are written, some officers might falsify activity reports with fictional warnings.54 Current Literature In a report on municipal traffic law enforcement in the State of Texas, John T. Thompson reported in 1957 that "Education can be carried on by enforcement personnel through a system of written warnings or by teaching the Ibid. 54Ibid., p. 16. 25 drivers on the spot the very road sense which they lacked."55 In one of the most recent works published on traffic law enforcement, Paul B. Weston recoqnizes the "grass roots movement among police officers for an extension of the warning procedure."56 He feels that this movement may stem from the officer's reluctance to serve summonses. This reluctance, he feels, has been caused by the public's new attitude toward enforcement created by the establishment of point systems.57 He feels that the public has lost its former blase' attitude toward traffic tickets since tickets are now harder to fix and in many areas become part of the driver's permanent record and are assessed points.58 He states that warnings also overcome the reluctance of police officers to contact minor violators.59 Weston agrees with the Report of the Committee on Enforcement and others that whenever an officer stops a car there must be some written record of the incident.60 55John T. Thompson, City Traffic Law Enforcement in Texas (Austin: The University of Texas, 1957), p. 22. 56Paul B. weston, The Police Traffic Control Function (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1960), p. 158. '57 Ibid. 581bid., p. 159. sglbid. 6OIbid., p. 160. 26 He concludes his comments on the value of the written warning with a rather long statement, but its logic and completeness justify its being quoted in full. Certainly this new warning procedure warrants some pilot projects in any department. If it does nothing more than increase the spread of violators coming to police attention, it will have far—reaching effect in securing voluntary compliance. Side effects on police morale, and public acceptance of the police enforcement program may also be worthwhile. It will also keep police on patrol, as it will save a great deal of time now lost in court.61 Evaluation of President's Conference Report and Current Literature The 1949 Report of the Enforcement Committee, while strongly urging the use of warnings in traffic law en- forcement, fails to cite any evidence to substantiate the belief that such enforcement action can actually help in reducing the national accident picture. They urge use of the system on the same grounds as most of the authorities in the field but are guilty of the same lack of research that has marked the other authorities who base their prOposals on opinions and belief rather than scientific fact. John Thompson is guilty of the same failure in his Texas report. Weston contends that the enforcement officer today is reluctant to take fine-resulting enforcement action 6lIbid., p. 161. 27 because of the public's growing animosity toward such action. However, Weston cites no evidence to support his contention. His statement concerning the value of written warnings in increasing officer-violator contacts seems to be the most valid argument to be found in favor of the use of such a system. VI. THE WORK OF MAXWELL HALSEY IN MICHIGAN In 1948 Maxwell Halsey, Executive Secretary of the Michigan State Safety Commission, began publishing, in co- operation with the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, a series of training manuals for traffic law enforcement officers.62 Halsey was an advocate of traffic enforcement uniformity and actively urged the adoption of the "Uniform Traffic Ticket" which has been referred to in many traffic circles as the "Michigan Uniform Traffic Ticket." A short resume of his efforts toward enforcement uniformity would seem to be apprOpriate to set the stage for his comments and efforts in behalf of the use of written warnings. As a member of the Traffic Committee of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, Halsey helped to set up a "unit" system to assist officers in determining when to 62Maxwell Halsey, "Increased Officer-Violator Contacts," The Traffic Digest and Review, III (September, 1955). p. 20. 28 ignore, warn, cite or arrest for traffic violations.63 This "unit" system was to be used in conjunction with the "uni- form ticket" which listed the six principal violations which experience in Michigan had indicated were the six violations involved in the majority of accidents.64 These violations were: (1) speed, (2) left turns, (3) right turns, (4) traffic signals, (5) stop signs, and (6) passing.65 In 1948, five cities in Michigan were designated as pilot cities to put into operation the "unit" system; and Halsey reported at the 1948 National Safety Congress that results up to that time were gratifying.66 At the above meeting, Halsey made the following statement which shows quite clearly his views on the use of written warnings in traffic law enforcement:67 It is generally agreed that the total number of official police contacts with motorists represents the total educational pressure exerted by enforcement efforts to encourage voluntary compliance with traffic laws on the part of motorists. 63Maxwell Halsey, "Uniform Enforcement," figtional Safety Council Transactions, I (1948), p. 8. 64Halsey, "Increased Officer—Violator Contacts," p. 26. 651bid., p. 26-27. 66Halsey, "Uniform Enforcement," p. 10. 67It is not certain that these views were those of the majority of the committee members. This statement is based on conversations with members of the Michigan State Police and members of Michigan municipal departments who asked that they not be quoted on this subject. 681bid., p. 9. 29 Halsey contended that oral warnings could not be counted on as a legitimate educational contact since they too often resulted in the violator congratulating himself on having talked the officer out of a ticket.69 He published his belief that "In the absence of such a system . . . written warnings . . . most of the marginal violators continue on their way without benefit of any restraining action."7O Halsey believed that both the conscientious police administrator and police officer would like to increase the number of officer-violator contacts but realize that greatly increased contacts resulting in fines would cause reper— cussions from both the public and the official family (i.e., judges, city manager, mayors).71 Halsey's sentiments on the value of written warnings are summarized in a section of an article which he authored for Traffic Digest and Review: In these days of increasing traffic volumes and increasing accidents with nothing like a correspond- ing increase in enforcement personnel, the most promising immediate safety pressure appears to be in the area of stopping more motorists under conditions where it can be made to appear reasonable. The opportunity to make more stops via the warning plan appears to be potentially much greater than via the increase in “go to court" type of tickets.72 691bid. 70Ibid. 71Maxwell Halsey, "A Uniform Enforcement Policy," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. XXXVII (July— August, 1946), p. 158. 72Halsey, "Increased Officer-Violator Contacts," p. 23. 30 It must be pointed out here that Halsey's definition of a written warning and that used in this study are not the same. Halsey's "notice of violation" would be issued on a regular "uniform traffic ticket" form and the recipient would have to present his copy to the local violations bureau for processing. If the recipient had either a minor or no previous driving record and the offense for which the "notice of violation" was issued was not serious, the recipient would receive no further action. However, should the driver's record show numerous violations in a relatively short time, the "notice of violation" would then become a summons and the recipient would have to appear in traffic court.73 As defined in this study, a written warning is any notice of violation not requiring judicial action and is not influenced by any prior records. Evaluation of the Work of Maxwell Halsey A study of Halsey's writing gives the impression that he was a prolific writer and an ardent worker for uni- formity in traffic law enforcement. As an advocate of written warnings, it would seem that he crystallized some of the thinking of others in the traffic field and did extensive work on determining criteria 73Halsey, "Uniform Enforcement," (Paper read at General Session of the 1948 National Safety Congress, Chicago, Illinois, October 18, 1948), p. 15. 31 for various degrees of enforcement action. He failed, how- ever, to conduct, or at least publish, any studies on the relative effect of the written warning on future driving behavior or the extent of the use of written warnings. His comments in these two fields are similar to those of the other authorities discussed who based their viewpoints on the system largely on personal opinion or isolated local experiences. VII. OVER-ALL EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE LITERATURE In the available literature on the subject, there are strong opinions on the part of most of the writers that written warnings have a definite place in a traffic law en- forcement program. This viewpoint is based largely on personal opinion and isolated experiences, the benefit of controlled scientific studies concerning the effect of written warnings on the future driving behavior of the recipient being limited to one author. It is also evident that little research has been conducted to discover the extent of the use of the system. Only two references were found in this regard. One recorded in 1953, 225 cities reported to the National Safety Council that they were issuing written warnings for some hazardous 32 moving violations.74 The other, the Smith-LeCraw Study, already referred to, which indicated that in 1947 only one state traffic law enforcement agency was using a ticket-only system.75 It would seem, since so little research has been conducted in this area and yet many authorities advocate the use of written warnings, this area is a primary field for future traffic law enforcement research. 74International Association of Chiefs of Police, The Police Yearbook, 1955 (Washington, D.C.: 'International Association of Cheifs of Police, 1955). p. 225. 7SSmith and LeCraw, "Speed Laws and Enforcement," Traffic Quarterly, 1 (April, 1947), p. 129. CHAPTER III EXTENT OF THE USE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING I. NUMBER AND TYPE OF STATE AGENCY USING AND NOT USING Of the forty-eight agencies responding to the questionnaire, twenty-three were state police agencies (agencies having and exercising full police powers in their state) and twenty-five were highway police (agencies which may or may not have full statutory police power but ordinarily confine their duties to enforcement of the motor vehicle statutes of their state). Thirty-three agencies reported that they are currently issuing written warnings in certain traffic law violations. The remaining fifteen do not use the written warning system and make it a policy to issue a ticket when written enforcement action is taken by one of their officers. Table I indicates the above infor- mation by agency. In dividing the returns into two types of agencies, state police and highway patrol, it was found that twelve (52 per cent) of the twenty-three state police agencies use written warnings while eleven (48 per cent) do not. In the TABLE I USE OF WRITTEN WARNING BY STATE AGENCY State Agency Alabama Highway Patrol Alaska State Police Arizona Highway Patrol Arkansas State Police California Highway Patrol Colorado State Patrol Connecticut State Police Delaware State Police Florida Highway Patrol Georgia State Patrol Idaho State Police Illinois State Highway Police Indiana State Police Iowa Highway Patrol Kansas Highway Patrol Kentucky State Police Louisiana State Police Maine State Police Maryland State Police Massachusetts State Police Michigan State Police Minnesota Highway Patrol Mississippi Highway Patrol Missouri State Highway Patrol Montana Highway Patrol Nebraska Safety Patrol Nevada Highway Patrol New Hampshire State Police New Jersey State Police New Mexico State Police New York State Police North Carolina State Highway Patrol North Dakota Highway Patrol Ohio State Highway Patrol Oklahoma Highway Patrol 34 Use Written Warning YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES NO NO YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES NO NO YES NO NO NO YES YES NO REPLY TABLE I (continued USE OF WRITTEN WARNING BY STATE AGENCY State Agency Use Written Warning Oregon State Police YES Pennsylvania State Police YES Rhode Island State Police NO South Carolina Highway Patrol YES South Dakota Highway Patrol YES Tennessee Highway Patrol NO Texas Highway Patrol YES Utah Highway Patrol YES Vermont State Police NO Virginia State Police NO Washington State Patrol YES West Virginia State Police NO Wisconsin Highway Patrol YES Wyoming Highway Patrol YES 35 36 case of highway patrols, twenty—one (84 per cent) make use of the written warning while only four (16 per cent) do not. After ascertaining whether the agency used the written warning system or not, the questionnaire asked if the respondents favored a change in their policy on written warnings in the near future.\ Two of the agencies, both state police, indicated that they would. Neither of these agencies uses the system at the present time, but indicated that they would like to in the future. One of these agencies indicated that a change in state executive policy would have to take place before this would be possible, while the other stated that it would require legislation. II. POLICY OF OLD VS. NEW AGENCIES When the research was first begun on the subject, it seemed possible that there might be a relation between the age of department and the use of the written warning. It was thought that the older agencies would not use the system ‘while the newer would have more of a tendency to do so. In order to test this hypothesis, a search was made thlrc>ugh statutes in the Michigan Law Library in the State C3534i_tol in Lansing, Michigan, to determine the actual age of the; forty-eight responding agencies. This information is Corl‘t:;ained in Table II. In cases where state police have replaced highway Ipat:2t:>ols, or vice versa, the date of origin was established 37 by going back to the first agency in the state which had jurisdiction over the motor vehicle laws, since this study is confined to actions taken in cases of violations of these laws. The agencies were ranked by age from the oldest (fifty-five years) to the newest (one year), as indicated in Table III. Considering all agencies twenty-five years and older as "old" agencies and all those younger than twenty- five as "new" agencies, we find that in the last twenty-five years there has been a definite trend for agencies organized within that time to use a written warning system. Of the twenty-nine old agencies, seventeen (fifty- nine per cent) issue written warnings and twelve (forty-one per cent) do not. Of the nineteen new agencies, seventeen (eighty-nine per cent) do use the system while only two (eleven per cent) do not. III. USE BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION When comparing the agencies which do and do not use written warnings, it seemed worthwhile to consider their geographic location, as is done in Figure I. Ten of the fifteen states not using the written warning lie east of the Mississippi River, the traditional east—west boundary, while five lie to its west. A group of five states may be noted in the East Central portion of the nation. This group includes Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and 38 North Carolina. Proximity may have led to a pattern in re- gard to the written warning, brought about by association in mutual law enforcement endeavors. Another concentration of states not using the written warning exists in the lower New England states and New York State. West of the Mississippi in the south, the only state not using the written warning is Louisiana, while in the southwest, New Mexico follows the same policy. The remaining states west of the Mississippi River not using written warnings are Idaho, Nevada, and California. There is a possibility of a change of policy presently taking place in California where, for the first time in several years, the Highway Patrol has begun to use a defective vehicle notification. This step of warning drivers rather than ticketing them for vehicle defects may indicate the possible eventual adoption of a written warning policy in California. All of the state law enforcement agencies are members of the State and Provincial Section of the Inter- national Association of Chiefs of Police, which is divided into four regions. Superimposing these regions is a map showing the distribution of written warnings and non-written warning states; Figure II shows that all of the regions contain both written warning and non-written warning states. The North Atlantic Region contains five non-written warning states: New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, 39 West Virginia, and Virginia. The Mountain Pacific Region contains the next largest number with four states: New Mexico, Idaho, Nevada, and California. The Southern Region contains three non—written warning states: North Carolina, Tennessee, and Louisiana. The Southern Region state of Oklahoma failed to respond to the questionnaire and conse- quently, the status of the written warning is not known in that state. The North Central Region has only two non- written warning states: Kentucky and Michigan. TABLE II STATE TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WITH DATE OF ORIGIN Date of Origin Agency 1939 Alabama Highway Patrol 1959 Alaska State Police* 1931 Arizona Highway Patrol 1945 Arkansas State Police 1931 California Highway Patrol 1935 Colorado State Patrol 1927 Connecticut State Police 1925 Delaware State Police 1939 Florida Highway Patrol 1937 Georgia State Patrol 1939 Idaho State Police 1923 Illinois State Highway Police 1933 Indiana State Police 1925 Iowa Highway Patrol 1937 Kansas Highway Patrol 1932 Kentucky State Police 1932 Louisiana State Police 1921 Maine State Police 1924 Maryland State Police 1921 Massachusetts State Police 1919 Michigan State Police 1929 Minnesota Highway Patrol 1938 Mississippi Highway Patrol 1931 Missouri State Highway Patrol 1935 Montana Highway Patrol 1937 Nebraska Safety Patrol 1949 Nevada Highway Patrol 1937 New Hampshire State Police 1920 New Jersey State Police 1933 New Mexico State Police *Formerly Alaska Territorial Police 40 TABLE II (continued) STATE TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES WITH DATE OF ORIGIN Date of Origin Agency 1917 New York State Police 1929 North Carolina State Highway Patrol 1935 North Dakota Highway Patrol 1933 Ohio State Highway Patrol 1937 Oklahoma State Highway Patrol 1931 Oregon State Police 1905 Pennsylvania State Police 1925 Rhode Island State Police 1930 South Carolina Highway Patrol 1935 South Dakota Highway Patrol 1929 Tennessee Highway Patrol 1935 Texas Highway Patrol 1941 Utah Highway Patrol 1919 Vermont State Police 1927 Virginia State Police 1933 Washington State Patrol 1919 West Virginia State Police 1939 Wisconsin Highway Patrol 1935 wyoming Highway Patrol 41 TABLE III USE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING BY AGE OF AGENCY Rank by Age Use WW Age in Years 1 Yes 55 2 No 43 3 No 41 4 No 41 5 No 41 6 Yes 40 7 Yes 39 8 Yes 39 9 Yes 37 10 Yes 36 11 Yes 35 12 Yes 35 13 No 35 14 Yes 33 15 No 33 16 No 31 17 No 31 18 Yes 31 19 Yes 30 20 Yes 29 21 Yes 29 22 Yes 29 23 No 29 24 No 28 25 No 28 26 No 27 27 Yes 27 28 Yes 27 29 Yes 27 30 Yes 25 31 Yes 25 32 Yes 25 33 Yes 25 34 Yes 25 35 Yes 25 36 Yes 23 37 Yes 23 38 No 23 42 TABLE III (continued) USE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING BY AGE OF AGENCY Rank by Age Use WW Age in Years 39 Yes 23 40 Yes 22 41 Yes 21 42 Yes 21 43 Yes 21 44 No 21 45 Yes 19 46 ' Yes 15 47 Yes 11 48 Yes 1 43 - Unreported Do Not Use Written 5 m Warnings / c" .l ‘ . EUse Written Warnin; . 44 of the Written Warning 1. Geographic Distribution of Use Figure CHAPTER IV VARIOUS FORMS FOR AND USES OF THE WRITTEN WARNING Each state agency was asked to return a sample of its ticket form with its completed questionnaire, and also, if they used them, copies of their written warnings and defective vehicle notifications.76 Twenty-eight of the agencies submitted samples of their warning forms which, together with information about the use of the warnings, disclosed some admittedly involved facts about the use of the written warning in the United States. I. TYPES OF FORMS There was little uniformity in the forms used. The sizes varied from a three by five inch single-copy paper form used by the Arkansas State Police, to an eight by four inch card form in duplicate, printed in two colors, used by the New Jersey State Police. It was evident from this lack 6See Appendix D. 47 of uniformity that little progress toward uniformity has been made since Baker's Study in 1939.77 Information Required Twenty-one of the twenty-five written warning forms studied contained, in a prominent location, the information that the form is a warning and not a ticket. The following information is the minimum required on any form: Driver's name, date, driver's license number, location of violation, some description of the violation, and the issuing officer's name and badge number. In addition to this basic information, eighteen of the forms ask for additional information such as make and model of vehicle, registered owner's name and address, and additional driver identification. Nine of the forms require the driver's signature. Four ask that the driver's occupation be given. Of the twenty-eight samples of the written warnings received from thirty—three agencies issuing them, fourteen are numbered. Possibly in these agencies in which the warn— ings are numbered, the forms are issued to the officer in sets and the officer is held accountable for them. Use of Safety Message A study of the various written warning forms shows that fourteen of the agencies use the form as an opportunity 77Newman F. Baker, "Traffic Tickets," Journal of Iafinninal Law and Criminology, XXX (May-June, 1939--March- April, 1940). p. 391. 48 to relay a safety message to the recipient. This message may be only a brief appeal for assistance in promoting safety on the highways. It may include safe driving tips and a rather complete safety message. A typical example of the safety message is: Most Accidents are Caused by the Driver Four common accident causes are: . The driver didn't think. He didn't look. He didn't know. He didn't care. 45me Knowledge of traffic laws and attention to driving will prevent accidents and save lives.78 On the back of the violator's copy of the warning, the Alabama State Highway Patrol prints a narrative type of safety message with strong emotional content. Notification Information On seventeen out of the twenty-eight samples, the recipient is notified on his copy that a copy of the written warning will be forwarded to the appropriate agency in his state for inclusion as a part of his driver's record. In Texas, just the Opposite practice is followed; in bold print, the recipient is informed "THIS DOES NOT BECOME A PART OF YOUR PERMANENT DRIVING RECORD." 78Warning of Traffic Violation, South Dakota — Department of Highway, Division of Motor Patrol. 49 II. USES MADE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING Used as Part of the Driver's Record Twenty-two of the thirty-three agencies using the written warning stated that it becomes a part of the driver's driving record. This filing is done by different branches of the state government in different states. In some states, it is done by the motor vehicle department, which seems to be the department most frequently used, while in other states it is handled by the secretary of state's office or the state law enforcement agency itself. Used as a Legal Basis for Future Enforcement or Administrative Action Twenty-three agencies reported that the warning can be used as a legal basis for future enforcement or adminis- trative action. This action may consist of: (1) Suspending the driver's license according to a pre-determined number or type of warnings or tickets or both; (2) notifying the driver to come in for a review of his record; (3) mailing the driver a letter warning him that further infractions may lead to suspension or review; or (4) taking legal action against a suspended driver who has received a warning, there- by proving that he has violated the suspension order. Checking over the twenty—eight sample written warn— ing forms revealed six of the state agencies, which indicated 50 that the written warning can be used for subsequent legal action, do not require the recipient to sign the form when it is issued to him. These states are Oregon, Utah, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, and South Dakota. It would seem that this lack of signature would cause serious legal questions if the driver claimed that he did not, in fact, receive a particular warning. As an example, the written warning used by the Arizona Highway Patrol requires a signature even though it is not used along with tickets to determine possible suspensions. It has often been used as legal proof that a driver whose driving privileges had been revoked or suspended was actually operating a motor vehicle. Without a signature on the written warning, it is felt that Arizona courts would not regard it as sufficient evidence to prove operation of a motor vehicle. Length of Time Kgpt on File The length of time that the various agencies keep the written warnings on file varies. Twenty agencies keep them on file permanently, two for five years, five for three years, two for two years, three for one year, and one for ninety days. All of the twenty agencies which file them permanently also use them as a basis for possible future enforcement action. CHAPTER V AGENCY ENFORCEMENT CRITERIA One item on the questionnaire asked, "Can you make a general statement regarding the basis upon which your offi— cers decide whether to disregard a violation, give an oral warning, a written warning, or a complaint?" This question was difficult to answer, as the replies received illustrate. Listed below are answers to the above question, grouped ac- cording to the type of action. I. DISREGARD VIOLATION Only nine out of the forty—eight responding agencies commented on disregarding a violation. It is interesting to note that seven of these nine made a point of the fact that their policy is that officers never disregard a violation. The two agencies, Arizona and South Carolina, which did sanction disregarding a violation, qualified their state- ments with the modification that this was to be done only when evidence available would not warrant prosecution. The following are quotations taken from question- naires illustrating a definite stand against disregarding any violation: 52 Kentucky State Police Policy is to never disre- gard a violation. Indiana State Police We advocate enforcement action on all violations. MinnesOta Highway Patrol Violations are not disregarded. Nebraska Safety Patrol All violators to be contacted. Pennsylvania State Police No violation observed is disregarded unless it is impractical to attempt to apprehend. Washington State Patrol The Officer is to make a correction of every vio- lation he observes. Wisconsin State Highway Patrol Violations are not disregarded. II. ORAL WARNING A question was asked concerning the use of the oral warning, as this type of action has often been confused with the written warning. Eleven agencies answered that they favor the oral over the written warning, twenty-eight replied they do not, and nine indicated they prefer using both types of warnings. Of the nine agencies commenting on their criteria for the use of the oral warning, only Ohio stated that oral warnings are not sanctioned by this department under any circumstances. The remaining agencies had the following to say about their policies: California Highway Patrol Kentucky State Police Michigan State Police Minnesota Highway Patrol New York State Police NOrth Carolina State Highway Patrol South Carolina Highway Patrol Wisconsin State Highway Patrol III. 53 Oral warning for a minor driving error. Oral warnings and note on operator's license uti- lized on a limited basis. Oral warnings are given for less serious in- fractions and in those instances where the officer feels he does not have sufficient facts to prosecute. Oral reprimands are used where the officer de- termines it is feasible, i.e., child walking on wrong side of road. Oral warnings only given to out-of-state motorists for trivial infractions when conditions justify same. Verbal (oral) warnings are used infrequently. Oral warnings are given only in very minor vio— lations, or when time element is involved (emergency, etc.). Oral warnings given in situations where it is impractical to write (tickets). WRITTEN WARNING Seventeen agencies responded with comments on the criteria for issuing a written warning and it is interesting ‘‘‘‘‘ 54 system. Vermont, which indicated it does not issue warnings, had this to say about its policy when it did use them. When warnings were in use, our officers would issue a written warning in cases where they observed a violation but felt that it was not serious enough to warrant taking the person into court. Nevada was the only state that mentioned the attitude of the driver when it replied. A very minor traffic violation wherein no person or property was endangered would in most instances receive a warning. The attitude of the offender is also considered. The remaining fifteen agencies, all of whom use the system, had the following comments: Alabama Highway Patrol On border line cases and if thought the warning is sufficient to correct future driving, a written warning is given. Alaska State Police A determination is usually made on the basis of the 'accident hazard potential' of the particular vio- lation, whether an oral or written warning is given. Connecticut State Police Borderline cases — bad but not illegal driving practices - illegal but minor or not supported by lenient court - physical or mental defect affecting operation. Delaware State Police In the event a Trooper observes a Violation, and under the circumstances an arrest is not warranted, he is to stop the motorist and give a written reprimand. Maryland State Police Minnesota Highway Patrol Montana Highway Patrol Nebraska Safety Patrol New Jersey State Police Ohio State Highway Patrol Oregon State Police Pennsylvania State Police South Carolina Highway Patrol Wisconsin State Highway Patrol 55 Warnings issued when with— in speed tolerances or when an amount of caution is exhibited by the law violator. Written warning is issued for a violation which, standing alone, does not warrant an arrest. Discretion is left up to the Officer on border- line cases. Those (violations) of a minor nature, moving vio- lations not imposing an immediate hazard, and minor equipment and licensing deficiencies to be issued a written warn- ing or 'must comply card'. Warnings are allowed with- in a limited area for. specific violations. Warnings permissive on non-hazardous, or other non-flagrant violations. Sometimes a minor vio- lation may be committed under such circumstances that the cause of law en- forcement is better served by warning. Minor violations attended by extenuating circum- stances and violation of equipment requirements may warrant written warnings. Written warnings issued in border line cases. Written uniform tolerance tables are guide as to Wyoming Highway Patrol 56 whether or not a warning is to be given. Pertaining to written warnings, nature and circumstance of the of- fense and the availa- bility of court, es— pecially in the event of out—of—state violators. TICKET Fifteen agencies commented on policy governing the criteria for issuing tickets for violations. Their comments appear below. Alabama Highway Patrol Georgia State Patrol Indiana State Police Kentucky State Police Louisiana State Police Arrest ticket is given in any case where it is thought warning will not be sufficient to correct future driving. Action taken would depend upon the nature or the seriousness of the vio— lation committed. We advocate enforcement action on all violations whether it be a warning or an arrest it is up to the discretion of the officer. All others (violations) that do not receive oral or written warnings re— ceive citations. Instructions to field personnel are to issue citation for any violation if evidence available will warrant prosecution, other- wise disregard. Michigan State Police Minnesota Highway Patrol Nebraska Safety Patrol North Carolina State Highway Patrol Ohio State Highway Patrol Oregon State Police Pennsylvania State Police South Carolina Highway Patrol Washington State Patrol Wisconsin State Highway Patrol 57 A summons is issued primarily for hazardous moving violations and for driving without valid license. Complaint is used for vio- lations of a more severe nature than that covered by oral or written warning application. Those (violators) in- volving a threat to personal safety or the welfare of others to be issued a summons. Our personnel make arrests for clear cut substantial violations. It is directed that their (the officers') decision be in favor of complaint for clear cut hazardous violations. Gravity of the Offense dictates policy. Clear cut deliberate vio- lations warrant arrests. Summons issued in all cases not covered by written or oral warning. The type of action taken would be dependent on the severity and the circumstances. Written uniform tolerance tables are guide as to whether or not a citation is to be given. 58 V. JUDGMENT OF OFFICER The most frequent enforcement criteria mentioned was the judgment of the individual officer. In almost every case, even when specific criteria were mentioned, the impli- cation was that a good part of the decision on what en- forcement action is to be taken rests with the officer and his good judgment. How this judgment is created or molded will be taken up in the following section, but first, consider the comments of sixteen of the agencies. Many of these made comments on specific criteria for enforcement but also included the following statements along with the specifics indicated in the previous section. Five of these sixteen agencies do not use the written warning. Arkansas State Police This decision is left up to the individual officer. Florida State Highway Patrol The basis for enforcement action is left entirely to the officer except in those particular vio- ‘ lations covered by depart_ ment policy. Georgia State Patrol , Action taken would depend upon the nature or the seriousness of the vio— lation committed. Idaho State Police The nature and severity of the violation deter— mines the decision. Illinois State Highway Police Own Judgment. Indiana State Police The seriousness of the violation from the officer's viewpoint is a deciding factor. Iowa Highway Patrol Kansas Highway Patrol Maine State Police Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol Montana Highway Patrol South Dakota Highway Patrol. Tennessee Highway Patrol Virginia State Police Washington State Patrol West Virginia State Police 59 It is left up to the officer's good judgment. The officer uses his own judgment issuing either a written warning or a summons. Depends on officer's judg— ment of which enforcement device will best correct the situation and best teach the violator the correct method of oper- ation. Issued on judgment of the officer. Discretion is left up to the officer on borderline cases. Personal judgment. The decision is made by the individual officer based on the circumstances and in accordance with personal opinion. Based upon the law, ex- perience, training and good judgment. The type of action taken would be dependent on the severity and the circum- stances. Officer considers each case on its own merits, then uses his own judgment. VI. DEFINITION OF POLICY Of the forty-eight agencies responding, thirty-one replied that there is clearly defined or written policy 6O regarding the circumstances under which the various types of enforcement action should be taken. The remaining seventeen agencies replied that policy is not clearly defined in writing. When asked when and how this definition is made, all thirty-one agencies stated that it is first done in recruit training school while twenty-two replied it is also covered in written regulations. Seventeen agencies also said they make their en— forcement policies known by other means such as: in-service training schools, personal contacts by superiors, house organs and on-the-job training. Nine agencies reported they use recruit training schools and written orders as well as some other form of instruction to make sure the department's enforcement poliCies are well known and that the officer's judgment is the best possible. CHAPTER VI ADVANTAGES OF THE USE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING In looking at assessments of a written warning system, it is believed that a more objective approach can be gained by looking first at those advantages listed by the fifteen agencies not using the system and then at those listed by the thirty—three currently using the system. The following statements are not proven facts, but merely opinions. However, they are the opinions of heads of traffic law enforcement agencies in forty—eight of the forty-nine states reporting and reflect the views currently prevailing on the subject of written warnings. The alter— native to using opinions, such as listed here, would be to engage in another full scale research project.79 I. ADVANTAGES CITED BY AGENCIES NOT USING THE WRITTEN WARNING In all, five different advantages to the use of the written warning were cited by fourteen of the fifteen agen— cies not currently using the system. Two of these agencies 79The need and possible procedure for such a project is outlined in the last chapter of this thesis. 62 believe that the written warning brings about additional contacts between field officers and violators. Two also believe that the written warning can be very advantageous to a driver improvement program.80 This advantage would hold true only in states where the written warning is made a part of the driver's permanent record and can be legally used as a basis for some type of future enforcement or administrative action. One agency believes that the written warning makes for greater compliance with requirements for mechanical equipment. Another said the written warning promotes good public relations for the traffic law en- forcement agency. The fifth advantage cited by a non- written warning agency was that the system permits some de- gree of enforcement action for violations when evidence necessary for prosecution is not available. II. ADVANTAGES CITED BY AGENCIES USING THE WRITTEN WARNING The states currently using the system listed four of the five advantages above and added twelve more. In common with the non—written warning agencies, five believe it makes for additional contacts by field officers, sixteen 80A driver improvement program is defined in, Driver Improvement-the Point system by B. J. Campbell (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The Orange Print Shop, 1958), p. 13 as a program of action involving, "(1) a process of selecting drivers in need of attention, and (2) a policy of taking one of several actions toward each driver." 63 stated they thought the system is beneficial to a driver improvement program, eight believe it helps promote good public relations for the department, and ten agreed that it permits some degree of enforcement action for violations when evidence necessary for prosecution is not available. These agencies found the following additional advan— tages: Eight believe it has good psychological effect on the recipient, six said that it makes a convenient super— visory tool for evaluating the individual efforts of the officers, and four thought the system is more effective than the use of the oral warning. Three reported they can be used to make the public aware of new or obscure statutes. Two states reported that it was a method for giving the department additional information on violations by time, date and location, which in turn assisted them in drawing up an effective selective enforcement program. Two agencies felt that it filled a gap between the oral warning and the issuance of a ticket. Each of the following advantages were listed by one agency. The written warning: 1. Does not have the stigma of arrest. 2. Reduces motor vehicle traffic violations. 3. Is the only form of non-arrest traffic en— forcement that can become a part of the driver's record. 4. Enables department to obtain voluntary ad- herence to traffic laws from an estimated eighty-five per cent of the motoring public. 64 5. Gives driver definite written notice of violation. 6. Has intangible advantages that cannot be accurately measured. III. GENERAL COMMENTS ON ADVANTAGES OF THE WRITTEN WARNING Several of the agencies commenting on the advantages of the written warning went into considerable detail and it may be beneficial to comment on at least three of these detailed replies. Colonel Homer Garrison, Jr., Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, wrote this about the advantages of the system: In other words, it (the written warning) helps to educate the public and at the same time tends to refute the charge that we are more interested in making arrests than we are in reducing the number of accidents.81 He went on to say that the paper work connected with the written warning is taken care of at the scene of issuance and only needs recapitulation on the daily activity report. The recapitualtion provides a convenient supervisory tool to be used in evaluating the efforts of the individual officers. A strong case was made for the written warning, when used in connection with the driver's operating record, by 81Colonel Homer Garrison, Jr., Written Questionnaire, dated March 8, 1960. 65 Carl L. Miller, Assistant Director of the Arkansas State Police. He commented, The written warning will enable us to obtain voluntary adherence to traffic laws from an esti- mated 85 per cent of the motor public. It is a good public relations' tool between the state police and the public if properly used. The written warning will, when used in connection with permanent drivers' record files, provide an up—to—date driver record on all drivers, there- fore, enabling us to apply corrective measures in a violation-prone driver before he becomes in- volved in an accident.82 He went on to state that, as Colonel Garrison mentioned, it also makes for a convenient yardstick with which to measure the activity of individual troopers. Possibly the most complete defense of the use of the written warning was given by Leo J. Mulcahy, Com- missioner of the Connecticut State Police, who enclosed, with his comments, an issue of the Connecticut State Police house organ, "Between Ourselves." In this issue, dated September-October, 1958, the policy stand taken by the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, in June, 1958, was quoted and then an article under the by—line of Captain William A. Gruber, of the Connecticut State Police, outlined in detail the position on the issue taken by his organization.83 82Carl L. Miller, Written Questionnaire, dated March 24, 1960. 83William A. Gruber, "Written Warnings Point the 'Way," Between Ourselves (September—October, 1958), p. l. 66 Under the title, "Written Warnings Point the Way," Captain Gruber questioned the effectiveness of arrest en— forcement in traffic violations making the point that the amount of deterrent effect accomplished is a matter of question. He believes that under a strict ticket—only- system, where no other enforcement action is allowed, the driver need do only one of two things: be certain that his action goes unobserved by the police, or confine his actions to border-line technical or trivial violations. Since tickets for the latter actions might not be sustained by the courts following arrest, the way is open for similar continued operation. Gruber feels that this demonstrates. that the officer's hands are tied and he must daily witness potentially grave offenses with no action whatsoever on his part. He believes that this can only lead to a complete disregard for all motor vehicle laws.84 It should be remembered that Connecticut is a "point system" state and that written warnings in that state do become part of the driver's permanent record and can be the basis for future suspension of a driver's license privilege. Gruber pointed out in this Official publication that all of the accident and fatality experience on our highways is not the fault of only the deliberate violator or those drivers who disregard laws governing the most serious offenses; it 84Ibid. 67 is a commonly accepted fact that the casually disregarded stop sign at five miles per hour can cause the most serious of collisions.85 The above comments on the so—called "minor vio- lations" can be augmented by the experiences of the re- searcher as a practicing highway patrolman. This condition has been so obvious to officials in Arizona that for four years they have toured the state showing, as often as possible, a color slide program entitled "Minor-Fatal Vio- lations." This program dramatically portrays the fact that minor violations can be and often are fatal. The Connecticut State Police believe that this situation bears out the need for a stopgap that would influence those violators slipping through the net as well as those potential violators in need of an educational contact. The Connecticut State Police summed up their argument as follows: "The written warning was the answer and still is!"86 In closing, the Gruber article went on to say that it is believed that the written warning is the best answer to the myriad offenders, real and potential, on our high- ways. They feel that workable and effective public re- lations is established through the written warning system without loss of control: “The written warning represents 851bid., p. 2. 86 68 educational enforcement at its best and when supported by arrest enforcement broadens the scope of influence and effectiveness of the police." The arrest enforcement action is put in a supporting rather than a principal role, which is more often the case.87 IV. MOST COMMON ADVANTAGES CITED The four advantages of written warnings most often cited were that they (1) benefit a driver improvement program; (2) make for additional contacts by field officers; (3) promote good public relations; and (4) permit some de- gree of enforcement when evidence necessary for prosecution is not available. These most common advantages compare favorably with the advantages, cited in Chapter II, which Wilson believed the written warning had over the oral warning. 87Ibid. . 88O. W. Wilson, Police Planning (Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1957), p. 155. CHAPTER VII DISADVANTAGES TO THE USE OF THE WRITTEN WARNING I. DISADVANTAGES CITED BY NON-WRITTEN WARNING AGENCIES Agencies not using the written warning found ten distinct disadvantages to their use. The most common disad- vantage was the feeling that officers are inclined to use the written warning as a means of escaping the responsi- bility of issuing a ticket in cases which clearly call for such action. This comment was made by seven of the non- written warning states. The following disadvantages were listed by two states each: 1. 2. It is difficult to obtain uniformity in application. If a violator receives a ticket rather than a written warning he feels that he is being discriminated against. There is little effect unless backed up by possible suspension action. Too much time is consumed, both by the officer and clerical help, in filing and checking the written warnings. There is no basis in law for such action (written warnings) on the part of the police. 70 As a disadvantage, one agency replied that it simply believes that the written warning has little deterrent ef- fect. Another was stronger in its comments stating that "the written warning is the first step in breaking down of enforcement program, serves to undermine rigid structure of any enforcement action program."89 Superintendent Francis McGarvey, of the New York State Police, was one of the spokesmen for the agencies which believe that the written warning has no legal basis and, in fact, may be illegal. McGarvey stated, "The written warning has a tendency toward the assumption of judicial powers by the executive branch."90 This philosophy will be commented on later in the thesis, under a chapter covering the legal implications of the written warning. II. DISADVANTAGES CITED BY AGENCIES USING THE WRITTEN WARNING Nine separate disadvantages to the use of the written warning were found by agencies currently making use of the system. Eleven of the agencies agreed with the comments of the seven non-written warning states that the officers are inclined to use the written warning as a means 89T. A. Welty, Written Questionnaire, dated March 18, 1960. 90Francis S. McGarvey, Written Questionnaire, dated March.12, 1960. 71 of escaping the responsibility of issuing a ticket in cases . which clearly call for one. This combination of agencies with the same philosophy made it clear that this particular hazard is felt to be the most serious disadvantage found in the written warning system. shown, on the 1. 2. Agencies using the written warning, in the number also agreed with the agencies not using the system following four disadvantages: Three agencies agreed they had little effect un— less backed up by possible suspension action. Two agencies agreed it was difficult to obtain uniformity in application. Two agencies also felt that too much time was consumed, both by officers and cleriCal help, in filing and checking the written warnings. One agency also felt that the violator who re- ceived a ticket felt that he was being dis- criminated against. Disadvantages pointed out by the written warning agencies that were not commented on by the agencies not using the system included: 1. Two agencies felt it is possible that the system might give the public the impression that the department was minimizing traffic law violations. One agency felt that issuing the written warning exposes the officer to serious injury needlessly. (Taking cognizanCe of the fact that there is great danger to an officer when he is outside his vehicle taking enforcement action and his exposure is increased if he is expected to issue written warnings as well as tickets.) One agency felt that the system means more time consumed by the officer in report writing rather than patrol work. 72 4. One agency felt that the written warning has zero value in dealing with approximately fifteen per cent of the motoring public. III. MOST COMMON DISADVANTAGES CITED The four most common disadvantages cited were that the written warning (1) is used by some officers as a means of escaping the responsibility of issuing a ticket in cases clearly calling for such action; (2) has little effect un- less backed up by possible suspension action; (3) is difficult to apply uniformly; and (4) creates feeling in violator who receives a ticket that he is being discrimi- nated against. It is interesting to note that, in 1946, Maxwell Halsey cited many of these same disadvantages to the use of written warnings in the supplement to a training manual pre- pared for the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police.91 He wrote, at that time, that unless carefully administered a written warning system could encourage officers to substi- tute warnings for an action which would produce a fine and gave the officer an easy "out" when he found a case with . . 92 extenuating Circumstances. 91Maxwell Halsey, The Value of Convertible Written Warnings to Traffic Violators in a Traffic Law Enforcement Program (Lansing: Michigan ASsociation of Chiefs of Police, 1946), p. 2. (Mineographed.) 9 211616. 73 Halsey felt, however, that "in spite of these defects, warnings have value as an enforcement tool just as does the automobile as a transportation tool. The defects in some warnings are certainly no greater than were the defects in the original Model T Ford."93 Halsey believed that written warnings were only part of the police traffic enforcement program and that many of the evils of the written warning could be overcome by substi- tuting a "notice of violation" for the written warning.94 Halsey's "notice of violation" idea has been'discussed in Chapter II. IV. GENERAL COMMENTS ON DISADVANTAGES OF THE WRITTEN WARNING In the above sections, the more common objections to the use of the written warning have been enumerated. This section will cite some specific comments on disad- vantages to the system. One agency argued strongly that the long range effect of the written warning is one of poor rather than good public relations. This agency believes that the written warning conditions the driving public to expect no more than a warning for the most flagrant violation and even 93 . 74 to think they are being discriminated against if they re- ceive a ticket.95 Another agency summed up the disadvantages of the system by saying that it tends to by-pass duly constituted judicial authority in favor of bureaucracy, prevents the accused from having his day in court and tends to lower the arrest rate which this agency feels is not in the public interest. The head of this agency stated that in twenty— seven years as a law enforcement officer he has seen no advantage to such a system.96 The Tennessee Highway Patrol also said that when written warnings were in use in that state arrests dropped and it was thought that this was caused by the officers' issuing written warnings for clear-cut violations when arrests should have been made. Major Henry M. Heer, Admin- istrative Assistant of that Department, reported that the use of the written warning had been discontinued several years ago, but that the system could be advantageous in connection with a driver improvement program. The West Virginia State Police, as their comments on the disadvantages to the system, forwarded a report by Lieutenant T. A. Welty, of their accident bureau, in which he wrote: 95Agency requested it not be quoted by name. 96Agency requested it not be quoted by name. 75 The written warning for moving hazardous vio- lations is the first step in breaking down for an enforcement program. The news gets around that there is a strong possibility the corrective action for a violation may be a warning—-hence the g9 what attitude is developed among our drivers. When en- forcement agencies do not use fair, impartial and rigid techniques in their enforcement programs, they are contributing to the development of a disrespectful attitude toward traffic laws and regulations. The written warning serves to under- mine the rigid structure of any enforcement program. Major C. R. Williams, of the EnforceMent Division of the North Carolina State Highway Patrol; made the point that the simple allegation that some driver has committed an offense does not warrant a suspension of the driver's driving privilege. He made this point very clear when he wrote, "The burden of proof rests upon the state to convict on evidence or suspend on record."98 One of the most outspoken critics of the written warning system is Bernard R. Caldwell, for many years head Of the Traffic Division of the Los Angeles Police Department, later Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol and, since January 1960, Director of the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. He has con- sistently opposed the use of the written warning as defined in this paper. He is convinced that written warnings, as 97T. A. Welty, Written Questionnaire, dated March 18, 1960. 98C. R. Williams, Written Questionnaire, dated March 8, 1962. 76 well as notices of vehicle equipment violation, are a sign of poor training, poor administration, poor supervision and poor enforcement. He feels that the recipient of a written warning in one stance feels discriminated against while in another thinks he has gotten the better of the officer and has written proof of it. Caldwell does not believe it proper to put a traffic officer in the position where this type of thing can occur. Most of these opinions were already well known to the researcher prior to beginning work on this thesis but were restated to him in a personal interview with Mr. Caldwell, at the Traffic Institute, in March, 1960. The comments of Mr. Caldwell and the heads of the fifteen agencies not using the system of written warnings should be studied carefully and given ample consideration by those interested in the problem. The views of these men reflect the thinking of some of the most outstanding administrators in the United States traffic law enforcement circles. CHAPTER VIII ANALYSIS OF THE NUMERICAL DATA In analyzing the numerical data gathered by the questionnaire it was found, as is indicated in Table IV, that a total of 4,559,593 tickets were issued in 1959 by forty-seven state traffic law enforcement agencies. The Georgia State Patrol replied that this information was not available for their organization. The thirty-three agencies that issue written warnings replied that they issued a total of 3,015,705 written warnings in 1959. Twenty-eight agencies furnished information on total numbers of defective vehicle equipment notifications issued in 1959 and this figure came to 2,159,795. Adding the total 1959 written enforcement contacts (tickets, written warnings, and defective vehicle equipment notifications), made by state traffic law enforcement agencies, we find that the total contacts were 9,735,093. In 1955, Halsey stated that many police adminis- trators felt that the ratio of written warnings to tickets 78 should be approximately ten to one.99 Looking at the figures and ratios in Table IV, we can see that few of the state agencies come close to this ratio. The Delaware State Police and wyoming Highway Patrol come closest with a ratio of approximately 8.5 warnings for each ticket. The Illinois State Highway Police and Mississippi Highway Patrol are at the other extreme and show a ratio of warnings to tickets of approximately .055 to 1. Considering all of the agencies which reported their 1959 written enforcement contacts, we find that the ratio of tickets to warnings is approximately 1.5 to 1. Taking only the ticket figures (2,349,547) from states issuing written warnings, we find the ratio drops to .77 tickets to 1 warning. Or, applied as warnings to tickets, 1.3 to 1. In any event, none of these ratios compare favorably with that acceptable to the police administrators Halsey mentioned. One possible reason for this discrepancy is that Halsey did most of his studies and planning with municipal agencies, and these ratios and figures are for state traffic law enforcement agencies only. Question number seventeen of the questionnaire asked for the total number of traffic officers employed by the 99Maxwell Halsey, “Increased Officer—Violator Contacts," The Traffic Digest and Review, III (September, 1955), p. 24. 79 department in 1959. The answers to this question suggest that many of the agencies misinterpreted the question. Rather than present figures which would cause confusion, or allow for misinterpretation, they have been omitted from consideration here. CHAPTER IX LEGAL STATUS OF THE WRITTEN WARNING The use of the written warning for certain vio- lations of traffic laws creates two main legal questions. These questions are voiced repeatedly by both proponents and opponents of the system. 1. Can the written warning when it becomes part of the recipient's driving record be used as a basis for future enforcement or suspension action on behalf of the driver licensing authority? . 2. Does a department or an officer of a department have the legal authority to issue a written warning when he observes a violation of a traffic statute? The first question has been covered in the chapter on the forms and uses of the written warning. Facts and figures were quoted from the various states which can legally carry out this type of operation. Although the second question has been mentioned, its legal aspect has not been considered. For authoritative legal opinions on this subject, two outstanding traffic law attorneys were consulted: Robert L. DOnigan, Legal Counsel for the Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, and. Lillian Banahan, Assistant to the Director of the Traffic Court Program of the American Bar Association. Besides his 81 long career with the Traffic Institute, Mr. Donigan has authored several texts on traffic law and is a regular member of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws, which is largely responsible for compiling the Uniform Traffic Code. In a personal interview at Northwestern University, Mr. Donigan Offered the opinion that he could see no legal question at all involved in the issuance of a written warn- ing for certain violations of the traffic laws. He feels that a traffic officer is expected to use judgment in any enforcement action and if his judgment dictates the use of a written or oral warning rather than a ticket, he has every legal right to do so. He compared the situation of an officer deciding what action to take to that of the prose- cuting attorney deciding whether or not to prosecute a case. Both are members of the executive branch of government and have no authority to take judicial action, but they do have to exercise ordinary judgment in every phase of their oper- ations or they would be useless to the unit of government which they have sworn to serve. Lillian Banahan, in April of 1960, had essentially the same comments to make and, after studying both the questionnaire and covering letter used in this research, could offer no other opinion but that there seems to be no legal question involved in the use of the written warning. 82 In attempting to get opinions on this subject from various members of the judicial branch of the government, the researcher was confronted with almost unanimous re- luctance to comment on the subject and complete reluctance to be quoted. One Michigan Municipal Judge summed up the general opinion when he stated that a court has no interest in a case until it gets to it, and when it does it would decide upon it. The members of the bench contacted feel that they should not comment or be quoted on a subject upon which they might possibly have to rule at some future date. CHAPTER X RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS I. RESULTS OF STUDY The study has brought together substantial infor— mation concerning the written warning and how it is current— ly used by state law enforcement agencies in the United States. 1. The data may be summarized in nine major headings: Thirty—three of the forty-eight agencies responding to the questionnaire indicated that they are currently using written warnings. Of the forty-eight agencies responding, fifteen do not currently use the written warning, but when asked if they favored a change in this policy, two of these fifteen answered in the affirmative. None of the thirty-three using the written warning favored discontinuing their policy. Of the forty-eight agencies responding, eleven advocated the use of the oral warning rather than the written, twenty—eight did not, and nine advo— cated using both oral and written warnings. When asked to make a general statement regarding the basis upon which an officer decided what type of 84 enforcement action to take, the greater share of the agencies responding stated it was an exercise of the individual officer's judgment. Thirty—one of the forty-eight agencies indicated that clearly defined or written policy governing the circumstances under which to use different types of enforcement action exists within their agencies. The methods by which this policy is made known to the officers varied. In two-thirds of the states reporting, the written warning becomes a part of the recipient's driving record and in a slightly higher number of the states it can be used as-a legal basis for future adminis— trative or enforcement action. Only four of the agencies using the written warning reported that they have no form for advising a motorist of defective vehicle equipment, and the same was true for eight of the agencies which do not use the written warning. When asked if the ratio of tickets to warnings re- mained approximately the same from year to year, twenty—six of the thirty-three agencies reported yes, five no, and two of the agencies had not had the plan in operation long enough to answer. Here it was interesting to note that whereas seventy—nine per cent of the agencies reported the ratio stayed 85 about the same, only twenty-eight per cent stated that their officers are expected to maintain this ratio and five per cent declined altogether to answer the question. Geographic location has little or no bearing on an agency's decision to use or not use the written warning. II. CONCLUSIONS It can be concluded from the above results that: The interest displayed for research into the subject of the written warning by the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police is justified since sixty—eight per cent of the respond— ing forty-eight state traffic law enforcement agencies currently use the system. Also, none of the thirty-three agencies using the system contem— plate or favor a change in this policy. Two of the agencies not now using the written warn— ing favor a change in policy which would allow its use. Thirteen of the fifteen agencies not using the written warning advocate the use of oral warnings and nine of the agencies using the written warnings believe that both can be used effectively. The figures indicate that the use of traffic tickets 86 alone does not make for a complete traffic en- forcement program. This agrees with the 1947 Smith and LeCraw Study, mentioned on page 32 where it was found that only one state practiced a "ticket-only" system.100 4. Most of the agencies reporting believe that it is the officer's prerogative to decide what type of enforcement action he is to take when he has witnessed a traffic violation. However, two agencies made particular mention of the fact that they have detailed enforcement policies which are designed to act as specific guides to the individual officer's judgment. It would seem that the work of Halsey and others, cited in Chapter II, toward uniform traffic law enforcement standards has not had a decided effect on state traffic law enforcement agencies.101 5. Those agencies which do not have specific guides for enforcement action do provide intensive training to enable their officers to make sound judgments. This training is carried out in recruit schools, by on- the-job training, or by study of written regulations. In many of the departments a combination of these methods is used. 100Wilbur S. Smith and Charles S. LeCraw, Jr., "Speed Laws and Enforcement," p. 129. 101 Maxwell Halsey, "Uniform Enforcement," p. 8. 87 Two—thirds of the agencies using the written warning make it a portion of the driver's record so that it can be referred to when the occasion demands. Seventy-nine per cent of the agencies reported that the written warning can be used as a legal basis for later enforcement or administrative action. In the agency that does not use it for future action, the warning is kept in police files and is used to check on the possibility that the recipient may have been operating a vehicle while his driving privilege had either been suspended or revoked. In the case of the agencies using the written warn- ing, only four of the thirty—three agencies reported they have no form, or do not use the written warning form, to notify an operator about faulty vehicle equipment. Seven of the fifteen agencies not using the written warning have some method of gaining compliance with equipment statutes short of issuing a regular ticket requiring court action. Although a large share of the agencies using the written warning stated the ratio of tickets to warnings remained approximately the same each year, most were very emphatic in pointing out that their officers are not expected to maintain this ratio. Here probably can be seen the strong reaction of traffic law enforcement officers to anything which 88 even remotely suggests a quota system of enforcement. 9. Individual departmental philosophy is of more im— portance in a policy decision of this type than geOgraphic area since in different geographic areas agencies were found that do and do not use the written warning. III. NEED FOR FURTHER STUDY This preliminary study points out that more research is needed before any factual statement can be made concern- ing the real value of the written warning as a deterrent to motor vehicle traffic violations. There is need for a detailed, scientific study, or studies, which would accurately measure and compare the deterrent effects of tickets and written warnings. As was mentioned in Chapter II concerning Wilson's Wichita Study, this problem is not an easy one to submit to scientific analysis. Keeping in mind the growing use of electronic data processing equipment (which was not available at the time Wilson conducted his study), an accurate, controlled series of studies would seem possible at this time. Such a method of study would require substantial time and effort and a corresponding amount of funds so that an adequate sample and sound research procedures could be utilized. 89 One method of study would be to use Wilson's paired grouping procedure and add to it the necessary safeguards to make the procedure sound.102 It is apparent that this would call for controlling exposure, education and other variables. Robert P. Shumate, Director of Research of the Field Service Division of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, stated that another method of research in this area might be less time-consuming and less dependent on the many variables listed above. He suggested, in a conver— sation at the Traffic Committee meeting of the I.A.C.P., in June, 1960, that a method similar to one he is currently using on a speed study might be adapted to a study of behav— ior following various types of enforcement action. His suggestion would utilize a radar speed measuring device con- nected with a camera which records the speed of a vehicle together with a photograph of the vehicle showing its make, model and license plate number. As he envisioned the problem, he would set up such a device five to ten miles down the highway from where en- forcement action would be taken and then compare the vehi— cle's speed, at this point, with the type of enforcement action taken. A serious limitation to this type of study is 102O. W. Wilson, "Police Control of the Automobile Driver," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. XXX (May- June, l939--March-April, 1940), p. 91. ' 90 that it would measure subsequent behavior in terms of speed alone and would not be able to take into consideration other types of driver behavior or the duration of the effect. In a May, 1960 conversation with Commissioner Joseph Childs of the Michigan State Police, he stated that such research would be of great assistance to him as he is currently studying the possibility of reintroducing the written warning system and is hampered in his decision by the lack of such information. The need for further and more detailed study is also suggested by one representative instance which was brought to light during this research. The states of North and South Carolina, which have many miles of common border and have similar motor vehicle death rates per one hundred thou— sand population, disagree about the value of written warn— ings.103 Authorities from the North Carolina Highway Patrol, in answering the questionnaire, flatly stated that "written warnings have little bearing on the conduct of drivers."104 The South Carolina Highway Patrol stated that "no disad- vantages (to the use of written warnings) can be cited, since it is evident that the written warning program is 103National Safety Council, Accident Facts, 1959 Edition (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1959), P~ 44- 104c. R. Williams, Written Questionnaire, dated March 8, 1960. 91 serving as a great factor in accident prevention."105 As can be noted from previous statements quoted in the body of the research, these statements are typical of the two views of the system, but they seem more significant when con- sideration is given to the close geographic proximity and very similar traffic records of the agencies expressing the conflicting viewpoints. Since sixty—eight per cent of the forty—eight state agencies reporting currently use the written warning, it would seem that as far as state agencies are concerned, there is neither approval nor disapproval of the use of written warnings. It would be interesting to develop a study similar to the one outlined in this paper, which would en- compass a representative sample of municipalities to de- termine whether or not municipalities are inclined to use written warnings. From reading done concerning the use of the written warning, it was discovered that one municipality which uses the system is enthusiastic about its results. Deputy Chief of Police Neal Chevalier, of Sayreville, New Jersey, has this to say about the use of the written warning in his locality: "The ability to issue a warning citation would vastly increase, therefore, the number of contacts between trained law enforcement officers and the driving public, 105p, F. Thompson, Written Questionnaire, dated March 11, 1960. 92 with every indication of bringing greater safety to our highways."106 In summation, it would seem desirable to conduct further research into two general areas: (1) the effect on a recipient's future driving record based on whether he received a written warning or a ticket; and (2) the extent of the use of the written warning by municipalities in the United States. 106Neal Chevalier, "The Warning Ticket of Sayreville (N.J.)," Law and Order, Vol. 7, No. 11 (November, 1959), p. 11. B IBLIOGRAPHY 93 BIBLIOGRAPHY (Books) Campbell, B. J. Driver Improvement-The Point System. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The Orange Print Shop, 1958. Institute for Training in Municipal Administration. Municipal Police Administration, Fourth Edition, Chicago: The International City Managers Associ- ation, 1954. Miller, George E. and David M. Baldwin. State Traffic Law Enforcement. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1944. Thompson, John T. City Traffic Law Enforcement in Texas. Austin: The University of Texas, 1957. Weston, Paul B. The Police Traffic Control Function. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1960. Wilson, 0. W. Police Administration, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1950. . Police Planning. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, 1957. (Articles) Ashworth, Ray. "Traffic Safety Through ENFORCEMENT," N.L.G.I. Spokesman, XX (January, 1957). Baker, Newman. "Traffic Tickets," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXX (May-June, 1939, March-April, 1940). Chevalier, Neal. "The Warning Ticket of Sayreville (N.J.)," Law and Order, VI (November, 1959). 94 95 Childs, Joseph A. "How to Achieve More Effective Traffic Law Enforcement," National Safety Council Trans- actions, XLIV (Traffic Safety Section), 1956. Garmire, Bernard L. "Traffic Administration in Eau Claire," The Traffic Digest and Review, I (August, 1953). Gruber, William A. "Written Warnings Point the Way," Between Ourselves, (Connecticut State Police House Organ), (September-October, 1958). Halsey, Maxwell. "Increased Officer-Violator Contacts," The Traffic Digest and Review, III (September, 1955). "A Uniform Enforcement Policy," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXXVII (1946-47). . "Uniform Enforcement," National Safety Council Transactions, I (1948). Halsey, Maxwell. "Uniform Enforcement," Paper read at General Session of the 1948 National Safety Congress, Chicago, Illinois, October 18, 1948. . "The Value of Convertible Written Warnings to Traffic Violators in a Traffic Law Enforcement Program," Safety and Traffic Committee of the Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, 1946 (Mimeographed). International Association of Chiefs of Police. The Police Yearbookyil955. Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police Incorporated, 1955. . The POlice Yearbook, 1959. Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police Incorporated, 1959. . The Police YearbookJ 1960. Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs of Police Incorporated, 1960. Kreml, Franklin M. "Police, Prosecutors, and Judges," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCCXX (November, 1958). National Safety Council. Accident Facts. 1959 Edition. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1959. 96 Pryde, James A. "Enforcement Must Be Planned," Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1951 Proceedings. Los Angeles: Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1952, p. 150. Smith, Wilbur S. and Charles S. LeCraw, Jr. "Speed Laws and Enforcement," Traffic Quarterly, I (April, 1947). Taking Enforcement Action. Traffic Law Enforcement Series. Traffic Institute, Northwestern University, 1958. The President's Highway Safety Conference. Report of Committee on Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1949. "When the Law's Around Drivers Take Care," Traffic Safety, LII (April, 1958). Wilson, 0. W. "Police Control of the Automobile Driver," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, XXX (May- June, 1939, March—April, 1940). APPENDICES 97 APPENDIX A RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 98 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Upon consultation with members of the staff of the School of Police Administration, in December of 1950, it was determined that the best approach to the problem would be a mailed questionnaire directed to the heads of the forty—nine state traffic law enforcement agencies. I. PREPARATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Purpose The purpose of the questionnaire was to obtain from each agency its policy concerning the use of the written warning. (As used here, "policy" has been defined as: "A general statement of how they go about accomplishing their objectives.") It was designed to gather as much information as possible about how the written warning system was ad— ministered in the several states, as well as how extensively the system was used within and among those states. An im- portant function of the questionnaire was to determine from both those who did and those who did not use the system precisely what they believed its advantages and disadvantages to be. The questionnaire also was designed to discover the quantities of written warnings, tickets, and defective vehicle equipment notices which were issued during the year 1959. Another purpose of the questionnaire was to Obtain permission from the executives of the various agencies to 100 quote their information and opinions in the body of the study in order to give a necessary weight of authority to the answers. Basis ofyguestion Selection An original list of twenty-five questions was reduced to eighteen and, with definitions and explanatory material, resulted in a three—page questionnaire (See Appendix). The following is a brief description of the content of each question with an explanation of why this material was needed. QuestiOn number one, inquiring if the department was currently using the written warning, was asked in order to determine the extent of the use of the system. Question number two, asking if the department was anticipating any change in policy toward the system, was designed to determine if any agencies using the system planned or wished to discontinue the use of the written warnings and if those not using them planned or wished to begin using written warnings. Question number three asked whether or not the agency advocated the use of the oral warning rather than the written warning, or if they advocated the use of both. This question was designed to determine whether agencies that used one system used it exclusively. Question number four asked if the agency could make a general statement regarding the bases upon which their lOl officers determined the type of enforcement action to be taken in various violation situations. Question number five asked if the enforcement policy discussed in number four was clearly defined, or in written form, or both. Question number six asked by what means the en— forcement policy discussed in numbers four and five were made known to the Officers. The agencies had the choice of indicating (a) in recruit school, (b) in written regulations or orders, or (c) other. Question number seven asked for the number of COpies and distribution of the written warning form. Question number eight determined the use made of the written warning after its issuance. The agency had four inquiries to answer within this one main question. Question number nine asked if the recipient was asked to sign a copy of the warning. This question was used to determine whether the agencies which indicated in number eight that they used the written warning for future en— forcement action had written proof that a warning had actually been received by a particular driver. Question number ten asked whether the department used a defective vehicle notice. This question determined whether agencies not using the written warning had some method, other than a ticket, to cause defective equipment to be repaired. 102 Question number eleven asked if the written warning form was used as both a warning and defective vehicle equip— ment notice. If so, did the agencies have some way of differentiating between the two for tabulating gurposes. (If not, this had to be taken into consideration when their total number of written warnings was considered.) Question number twelve asked for the number of traffic tickets issued by the department in 1959 (See Appendix). Question number thirteen asked for the total number of written warnings issued by the department in 1959 in order to reflect the volume of the written warnings issued annually in the United States (See Appendix). Questions number fourteen and number fifteen asked whether the ratio of tickets to warnings was the same from year to year and if officers were expected to maintain this ratio. It was planned that answers to these questions would put the current ratios in the proper perspective. Question number sixteen asked for the total number of defective vehicle equipment notices issued by the de- partment in 1959 (See Appendix). Question number seventeen asked for the total number of officers engaged primarily in traffic enforcement during 1959. This information was requested for a contemplated comparison of the use of the written warning to manpower available for traffic law enforcement. 103 Question number eighteen, in combination with question number four, was the core of the questionnaire. It asked for the Opinion of the executive on the advantages and disadvantages of the use of the written warning in traffic law enforcement in his jurisdiction. II. CIRCULATION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE Selection of Agencies to be Polled It was believed originally that a selected sampling of state traffic law enforcement agencies would give the desired information for this study. Further thought sug- gested that a truer picture could be obtained by gathering information from as many states as possible. Therefore, it was decided to send the questionnaire to the head of each state traffic law enforcement agency. This mailing list was taken from the official roster of the State and Provincial Section of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which includes the chief traffic law enforcement officers in the United States. Forty-nine state law enforcement agencies were to be contacted, as Hawaii, the fiftieth state, had no state-level police agency. Selection Of Method of Circulation This subject is of interest to the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The researcher's 104 Superintendent is chairman of the Sub—committee on Research Projects of the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Therefore, it was decided to circulate the questionnaire under the auspices of the Arizona Highway Patrol and the Traffic Committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. It was be- lieved that these auspices enlisted fuller cooperation than would have resulted had the questionnaire been sent out solely as a project of a graduate student. To explain the reason for the questionnaire and the study, a covering letter was prepared and sent out over the signature of Superintendent G. O. Hathaway of the Arizona Highway Patrol (See Appendix). III. QUESTIONNAIRE FOLLOW‘UP REQUEST The original questionnaires and covering letters were mailed from Phoenix, Arizona, on or before March 1, 1960. The covering letter asked that the questionnaire be returned, in the enclosed stamped and addressed envelope, to East Lansing on or before March 15, 1960. Forty of the states responded by the deadline date. By March 21, all but five states had responded. A follow-up letter and extra questionnaire were mailed to these five states on March 21 (See Appendix). By April 4, all but one state (Oklahoma) had replied and the polling was closed and tabulation and 105 evaluation of the information on the questionnaires was begun. IV. EVALUATION OF INFORMATION FROM QUESTIONNAIRE As the questionnaires were received they were checked to see if all questions had been answered. If not, an attempt was made to determine why the information was not included. In almost every instance, answers on the question- naires were complete and detailed. Ten of the forty-eight agencies appended explanatory material which amplified their answers. This initial review of the responses made it possible to discover the extent of the use of the system, and whether or not permission was given to quote the re— spondent. Three agencies asked that they not be quoted. Responses to each question were tabulated. Opinion responses were listed separately. Where possible, opinion answers were later grouped according to general similarity of responses. This method was most effective in considering the advantages and disadvantages to the system. V. PERSONAL INTERVIEWS Personal interviews were limited to one series conducted on March 24 and 25, 1960, with (1) Bernard Caldwell, Director, Traffic Institute, Northwestern Uni— versity; (2) Robert L. Donigan, General Counsel, Traffic 106 Institute, Northwestern University; and (3) Lillian Banahan, Assistant to the Director, Traffic Court Program, American Bar Association. These interviews began with a brief explanation, by the researcher, of the subject under consideration. The following information was then solicited: (1) their ap- praisals of the questionnaire and cover letter; (2) their opinion of the extent to which the study should be carried on; (3) their answers to several specific questions on the use of the written warning in traffic law enforcement; and (4) their general comments on the subject. APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 107 Are you currently issuing written warnings? 108 QUESTIONNAIRE AGENCY As used in this questionnaire a "written warning" is any written notice of violation, not requiring judicial action, given to a traffic violator which may or may not become a part of his driving record. A "complaint" is what is known by various terms such as: ticket, summons, citation, etc. Do you anticipate, or favor, a change in this policy in the near future? Does your department advocate the use of the oral warning rather than the written warning? Can you make a general statement regarding the basis upon which your officers decide whether to disregard a give an oral warning, a written warning, or Definitions: 1. 2. Please explain. 3. Both? 4. violation, a complaint? 5. Is there clearly defined or written department policy issued concerning when each action should be taken? . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 109 If clearly defined, when and where is this done? a. In recruit school? , b. In written regulations or orders? , c. Other? . Of how many copies does your written warning consist and what is their distribution? . What use is made of the written warning? a. Does it become a part of the driver's driving record? , b. May it be used as a legal basis for future en- forcement action? , c. How long is it on file? Is the recipient of a written warning asked to acknowl- edge its receipt by his signature? . Does your department normally use a form for notifying an Operator that his vehicle is in need of repair? (Examples: head light out, tail light out, cracked windshield, etc.) . If the written warning form is used for Number 10 is there a differentiation made on the form between a "repair order" and a "warning"? What was the total number of traffic complaints issued by your department in 1959? . What was the total number of written warnings, not re— pair orders, issued in 1959 by your department? . Does this approximate ratio prevail from year to year? Are the officers expected to maintain this ratio? . 110 16. What was the total number of vehicle repair orders issued in 1959 by your department? 17. What was your total number of traffic officers (field officers engaged primarily in traffic enforcement, or administration of field traffic enforcement) in 1959? 18. In your opinion what are the advantages and disadvantages derived from the use of the written warning? (Please use extra space, if desired, as this is an extremely important portion of the questionnaire) For illustration purposes please enclose with this question- naire one (1) copy of the following: 1. Traffic complaint form, 2. Written warning form, 3. Vehicle repair order form. The extra copy of this questionnaire is furnished so you may have a file copy, if you wish. Signature of Administrator Title 111 Do we have your permission to quote your answers and comments in the research paper? . We will, of course, respect your wishes in this matter. However, in a work like this, facts and opinions lose a lot of their importance when the name of the authority is not mentioned. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN ANSWERING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ARIZONA HIGHWAY PATROL 2010 WEST ENCANTO PHEONIX, ARIZONA 1 March 1960 Dear At the 1959 mid-year meeting of the Traffic Committee of the I.A.C.P. the need for research in traffic matters was once again discussed. One of the items given number one priority at that time was the written warning and its place in the police traffic enforcement effort. An officer of this department, Sgt. T. H. Milldebrandt, is currently studying for his masters degree in Traffic Admin- istration at Michigan State University. This study has been made possible by a fellowship from the Automotive Safety Foundation. Understanding the need for more factual information on the subject of the written warning and the I.A.C.P.‘s interest, Sgt. Milldebrandt's thesis committee has approved it as the topic for his masters degree research project and thesis subject. The enclosed questionnaire is designed to give as complete a picture as possible of your use and/or opinions of the writ- ten warning and still not make it too time consuming for you to answer. Any additional comments or suggestions you have concerning the subject will be appreciated by all concerned. I trust that you will give this your personal, prompt and interested attention. Sgt. Milldebrandt would like to be able to have the material back in his hands by 15 March so that he could process the information and complete his re- search by the 1960 mid—year meeting of the Traffic Committee. A stamped, addressed envelope is enclosed for your con— venience in returning the form and requested samples. 112 113 Page 2 1 March 1960 A copy of the completed thesis will be sent to all who par- ticipate in the research project. Thanking you in advance for your kind cooperation in this matter and assuring you of mine in all matters of mutual interest, I remain Very truly yours, G. O. Hathaway, Chairman Sub-Committee on Research Projects Traffic Committee, I.A.C.P. GOH/h Enc. 922 C Cherry Lane East Lansing, Michigan 22 March 1960 Commissioner J. Lookabaugh State Department of Public Safety Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Dear Sir: Recently Superintendent Hathaway of the Arizona High- way Patrol sent you the enclosed letter and questionnaire. The replies I have received have been very gratifying with 45 of the 50 states already returning their questionnaires. I have a rather close deadline to meet on this research project and since I have not heard from you as yet I am sending you this followup letter. As the mailing was done from Arizona on directions from here in East Lansing any number of things could have prevented it from reaching you and being returned to me. If you do not wish to return the questionnaire could you please let me know so that I can close my mailing and begin tabu- lating the results? Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter, I remain Yours truly, Thomas H. Milldebrandt, Sgt. Public Information Officer Arizona Highway Patrol Encl: Copy G.O.H. letter, 1 March 2 copies questionnaire 114 APPENDIX C TABLE IV. ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS 1959 TABLE V. DEFECTIVE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN 1959 115 TABLE IV ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS 1959 A9999): Alabama Highway Patrol Alaska State Police Arizona Highway Patrol Arkansas State Police California Highway Patrol Colorado State Police Connecticut State Police Delaware State Police Florida Highway Patrol Georgia State Patrol Idaho State Police Illinois State Highway Police Indiana State Police Iowa Highway Patrol Kansas Highway Patrol Kentucky State Police Louisiana State Police Maine State Police Maryland State Police Massachusetts State Police Michigan State Police Minnesota Highway Patrol Mississippi Highway Patrol Missouri State Highway Patrol Montana Highway Patrol Nebraska Safety Patrol Nevada Highway Patrol New Hampshire State Police New Jersey State Police New Mexico State Police New York State Police North Carolina State Highway Patrol 116 Tickets 87,793 2,679 77,025 38,164 1,030,231 82,563 27,651 22,546 110,884 N.A. 15,374 225,000 101,948 49,718 41,153 91,151 50,372 23,250 85,521 12,813 221,104 50,087 46,200 71,948 31,516 46,913 5,000 5,967 174,474 76,277 175,642 240,016 Warnings Ratio Tickets To WW 56,540 17,940 71,791 84,313 N.U. 51,997 42,469 186,103 236,470 93,677 N.U. 12,355 81,236 30,636 28,026 N.U. N.U. 25,562 275,669 28,249 N.U. 46,673 2,500 149,018 4,586 47,263 N.U. N.U. 79,349 N.U. N.U. N.U. Ol—‘Ol—J U'II-‘NO‘ wrapam <3c>o+a Ulmtpk) mraxlm OOO UlLDKO OAOGJH \OU1U1H TABLE IV (continued) ENFORCEMENT CONTACTS 1959 Agency North Dakota Highway Patrol Ohio State Highway Patrol Oklahoma Highway Patrol Oregon State Police Pennsylvania State Police Rhode Island State Police South Carolina Highway Patrol South Dakota Highway Patrol Tennessee Highway Patrol Texas Highway Patrol Utah Highway Patrol Vermont State Police Virginia State Police Washington State Patrol West Virginia State Police Wisconsin Highway Patrol Wyoming Highway Patrol N.U. : Not Used. Information Not Available. Iggkets 15,830 102,060 NO REPLY 71,823 152,599 8,818 127,285 4,165 87,203 241,191 25,262 4,848 163,000 135,054 35,043 59,047 5,385 Ratio Tickets Warnings To WW 10,076 1.6 121,602 0.9 114,873 0.6 97,552 1.6 N.U. 360,979 0.4 1,142 3.6 N.U. 433,703 0.6 30,739 0.8 N.U. N.U. 123,797 1.1 N.U. 27,397 2.2 41,423 0.1 117 TABLE V DEFECTIVE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN 1959 Agency Alabama Highway Patrol Alaska State Police Arizona Highway Patrol Arkansas State Police California Highway Patrol Colorado State Patrol Connecticut State Police Delaware State Police Florida Highway Patrol Georgia State Patrol Idaho State Police Illinois State Highway Patrol Indiana State Police Iowa Highway Patrol Kansas Highway Patrol Kentucky State Police Louisiana State Police Maine State Police Maryland State Police Massachusetts State Police Michigan State Police Minnesota Highway Patrol Mississippi Highway Patrol Missouri State Highway Patrol Montana Highway Patrol Nebraska Safety Patrol Nevada Highway Patrol New Hampshire State Police New Jersey State Police New Mexico State Police New York State Police North Carolina State Highway Patrol North Dakota Highway Patrol Ohio State Highway Patrol Oklahoma Highway Patrol 118 Defective Equipment Violation N.U. 10,088 47,879 120,679 NEW 5,582 40,661 N.A. 197,965 N.A. N.U. N.U. 41,343 118,310 N.A. 29,298 259,031 96,176 N.A. 24,959 N.U. 71,677 N.A. N.A. 24,714 115,252 N.A. 12,641 N.U. N.U. N.U. N.U. 18,152 202,949 NO REPLY TABLE V (continued DEFECTIVE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT NOTIFICATIONS ISSUED IN 1959 Defective .Agency Equipment Violation Oregon State Police N.U. Pennsylvania State Police 75,866 Rhode Island State Police 37,561 South Carolian Highway Patrol 150,264 South Dakota Highway Patrol 8,913 Tennessee Highway Patrol N.U. Texas Highway Patrol 260,008 Utah Highway Patrol 12,457 Vermont State Police 20,182 Virginia State Police N.U. Washington State Patrol 46,676 West Virginia State Police 61,146 Wisconsin Highway Patrol 106,251 Wyoming Highway Patrol N.A. N.U. = Not used. N.A. = Information not available. 119 APPENDIX D DEFECTIVE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT NOTIFICATION 120 121 DEFECTIVE VEHICLE EQUIPMENT NOTIFICATION As the written warning has been defined for this research project it does not include written enforcement action that brings about compliance with equipment statutes of the various motor vehicle codes. However, information on this type of enforcement action was also obtained by the questionnaire. Of the forty—eight agencies reporting, twenty—five (52 per cent) make use of a separate form to advise a driver of an equipment violation. Twelve agencies (25 per cent) do not make use of such a form, while eleven (23 per cent) of the total agencies reporting stated they make use of their written warning forms for this purpose as well as for other violations. Looking at only the agencies using the written warning, eighteen (55 per cent) make use of a separate form for equipment violations while only four (12 per cent) of the thirty-three do not use any type of form for this purpose. Of the fifteen agencies not making use of the written warning, seven (47 per cent) do have some type of equipment violation form while eight (53 per cent) do not. In both the written warning and non-written warning agencies that do not use some special type of notification form for defective vehicle equipment violations, the policy is to issue a ticket requiring court action against the violator. 122 Experience in Arizona has shown that when following the ticket practice, if the defective equipment is repaired be- fore the court appearance on the ticket, the court often suspends sentence or dismisses the ticket entirely. In those states using defective vehicle equipment notifications, the violator simply has to get the repairs made within a specified period of time, usually five days, and either have the vehicle inspected or return a postcard proving that the fault has been corrected. "I11111111111111111'