RESOURCE CENTER REPORT
Number 94-2
March 1994
University of Wisconsin Law School
Resource Center on Impaired Driving
A REPORT OF THE 1993 SOBRIETY
CHECKPOINT PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY
Nina J. Sines, Director
A majority of Wisconsin citizens approve of using sobriety checkpoints as an enforcementmeasure to deter and detect drunk driving. This public approval of sobriety checkpoints iscontrary to the perceptions articulated by law enforcement and policymakers. The often heardresponse to the inquiry, "Why doesn't Wisconsin use sobriety checkpoints?" has been that thecitizens of Wisconsin would not tolerate them. The Resource Center on Impaired Drivingdecided to test the validity of this expected negative response by conducting a random publicopinion survey.
The Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory1 conducts a monthly telephone poll entitledWisconsin Opinions. The poll is comprised of a core set of questions plus a number of questionswhich vary from month to month concerning current events that affect Wisconsin's population. The poll is conducted monthly as a random digit dialing telephone survey of 200 householdsaround the state.2
The Resource Center submitted nine questions concerning Wisconsin's efforts to reduce drunkdriving that were added to the Wisconsin Opinions' core set of questions. A total of 436 peoplewere surveyed during August and September 1993. The Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratoryprepared a statistical analysis of the responses from the Resource Center questions.3
Well over half of those surveyed rated police efforts to reduce the incidence of drunk driving asgood or very good. More specifically, 23% said police were doing a "very good" job and 44%said police efforts were "good." By contrast, only 7% said they felt police were doing a poorjob. Overall, the police force received a positive report card for their efforts in reducing drunkdriving.
Almost three-fourths (72%) of people surveyed had heard of sobriety checkpoints. However, ageneral description of sobriety checkpoints was provided before any further questions wereasked.4 Based on the description, the vast majority of respondents believed that sobrietycheckpoints would be "very effective" and 48% said they believed sobriety checkpoints would be"somewhat effective." Only 6% believed sobriety checkpoints would not be at all effective.
While a majority of both men and women surveyed felt that sobriety checkpoints would be eithereffective or very effective, there was a statistically significant gender difference in response tothis question. Specifically, the survey results suggest that women are more likely than men tobelieve that sobriety checkpoints would be an effective deterrent to drinking and driving.5
Additionally, the vast majority stated they believed sobriety checkpoints would increase a drunkdriver's chance of being detected and arrested. In particular, 36% said they believed the chanceof being detected and arrested would increase "a great deal." Only 14% said they believed thechance would be increased "very little." Again, while the majority clearly believed sobrietycheckpoints would detect and arrest, the survey suggests that women are more likely than men tobelieve that sobriety checkpoints would increse that chance.6
Almost three-fourths of the respondents (71%) approved of sobriety checkpoints as anenforcement measure to deter and detect drunk driving. Only 25% said they disapproved ofsobriety checkpoints as an enforcement measure (Figure 1). Here again, the survey resultssuggest that women are more likely than men to approve of sobriety checkpoints while men aremore likely than women to disapprove.7 Overall, this approval response does not suggest thelack of tolerance for sobriety checkpoints that was expected. The reasons for disapproval ofsobriety checkpoints were varied and ranged as follows: intrusion of privacy (43%),infringement of other rights (27%), other crimes more urgent (12%), not effective (8%),delay (6%), and other (11%).8 However, people were unable to suggest an alternative measure toreduce drinking and driving with any consensus. While 20% said they would prefer morestringent penalties, a larger number of respondents (29%) stated they didn't know what othermeasure they preferred (Figure 2). These results suggest that people are aware of the complexityof the drunk driving problem but are unable to arrive at a single solution.
More people knew someone who had been charged with a drunk-driving related offense (62%) than were involved in an alcohol-related accident (40%).9 These results might be expected inlight of the statistics that show Wisconsin had the highest drunk driving arrest rate per 1,000 inthe midwest for 1990,10 as well as a 44% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities from 1980 to1991.11
Here, the Resource Center was interested in whether knowing someone involved in an alcohol-related accident or charged with a drunk driving offense correlated with a person's approval ordisapproval of sobriety checkpoints. There was no apparent correlation between one's opinion onsobriety checkpoints and whether one knew someone involved in an accident. There was,however, a statistically significant correlation between whether one knew someone who had beencharged with a drunk driving offense and one's opinion on sobriety checkpoints. Morespecifically, those people who disapproved of sobriety checkpoints were more likely to haveknown someone charged with a drunk driving offense. In other words, those who approved wereless likely to know someone who had been charged with an offense.12
Finally, just over half (52%) of the respondents described the current drunk driving laws inWisconsin as fair, while 38% felt they were too lenient. Only 5% felt they were too harsh(Figure 3). Once again, there was a statistically significant gender difference. The survey resultssuggest that women are more likely to feel the laws are too lenient and men are more likely toperceive the laws as too harsh.13
Overall, the survey results indicate that people are concerned about the drunk driving problemand how to reduce the incidence of drinking and driving. Contrary to what many lawenforcement officials and policymakers have thought, the majority of people in Wisconsin wouldtolerate sobriety checkpoints. In fact, almost three-fourths approve of sobriety checkpoints as anenforcement measure. This majority approval is in stark contrast to the lack of similar supportfor any one alternative measure to reduce drinking and driving. As long as Wisconsin citizensaccept and approve of sobriety checkpoints, law enforcement agencies should be allowed to addthem to their arsenal of tools to combat the drunk driving problem.
Special thanks to Wendy Hegge for her assistance in developing the survey questions and editingthis report.
Endnotes
1. The Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory is a part of the University of Wisconsin-Extension, Continuing Education Extension, located in Madison, Wisconsin.
2. Letter from Linda J. Penaloza, Associate Director and Head of Field Operations, WisconsinSurvey Research Laboratory, to Nina J. Emerson, Director, Resource Center on Impaired Driving(July 15, 1993) (on file with author).
3. The analysis was correlated with standard demographic data and indicated statisticallysignificant results. Results that are statistically significant indicate a difference between twosamples, e.g., men's responses versus women's, that is greater than what might be expected due tothe natural fluctuations in random samples. Memo from Wendy Hegge to Nina Emerson(Dec. 13, 1993) (on file with author).
4. The paragraph read as follows, "Sobriety checkpoints are used by police in some states to stopdrivers to detect the presence of alcohol. At the checkpoint, the officer stops each vehicle, looksat the driver's license or vehicle registration, and observes the driver for signs of alcoholimpairment. This stop usually lasts only 15 to 30 seconds. If there are signs of impairment, thedriver is requested to pull over to the side of the road for further testing." August-SeptemberFinal Data, Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory, 1993.
5. Of the total 434 respondents to this question, 189 were male and 245 were female. Thedifference was significant in that women were 10% more likely than men to believe sobrietycheckpoints were "somewhat effective." In contrast, men were 10% more likely than women tobelieve sobriety checkpoints would not be very effective. Id.
6. Of the total 437 respondents to this question, 190 were male and 247 were female. Thedifference was significant in that women were 11% more likely than men to believe sobrietycheckpoints would increase a drunk driver's chance of being detected and arrested. In contrast,men were 16% more likely than women to believe sobriety checkpoints would increase thatchance "very little." Id.
7. Specifically, 80% of the females and 61% of the males surveyed approved of sobrietycheckpoints. In contrast, 36% of the males surveyed disapproved while only 17% of the femalesdisapproved. Id.
8. Respondents could cite more than one reason in response to this question. The "other"response was not elaborated and 2% stated, "don't know." Id.
9. Id.
10. Memo from Dennis Hughes to Joe Maassen, et al., (Oct. 28, 1993) (copy on file withauthor).
11. "Drunken driving plunges," The Cap Times, Sept. 23, 1992.
12. Memorandum from Linda J. Penaloza to Nina Sines (Dec. 13, 1993) (FAX copy on file withauthor).
13. Of the total 437 respondents to this question, 190 were male and 247 were female. Thedifference was significant in that women were 8% more likely than men to view the laws as "toolenient." In contrast, men were 6% more likely to view the laws as "too harsh."