Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Although alcohol-related impaired driving continues to be the primary cause of fatal automobile accidents in the United States, drug-impaired driving has emerged as a growing threat to public safety. Identifying and prosecuting cases of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) requires the engagement of three important actors within the criminal justice system: law enforcement, forensic toxicologists, and prosecutors. Each of these actors plays a crucial role in gathering, interpreting, or presenting evidence of drug-impaired driving to build a successful case. Meticulous observational and chemical evidence collection and skilled, simple interpretation of this evidence is particularly important in a DUID case because such cases can be more complex and difficult to prove than alcohol-related impaired driving cases. Although blood alcohol concentration levels have been established and accepted as reliable and valid evidence of alcohol-impaired driving, no equivalent technique yet exists that correlates an amount of a drug in the body with the degree of drug-related impairment. To examine this issue, RTI International and the RAND Corporation convened a two-day workshop. The participants discussed the challenges, opportunities, and complexities faced by law enforcement, forensic toxicologists, and prosecutors in their roles collecting, interpreting, and presenting evidence in cases of driving under the influence of drugs. Using these discussions, the panel members identified and ranked needs for law enforcement, forensic toxicologists, and prosecutors to successfully identify and prosecute DUID cases. This report provides the prioritized list of needs and accompanying context from the discussion that resulted from this effort.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Local jurisdictions, faced with caseloads of increasing complexity and cost, have adopted alternative approaches to criminal case processing — including the use of new technologies — that have the potential to reduce backlog and improve judicial efficiency. Telepresence technology, which allows an individual or group of individuals to appear in a court proceeding from a remote location, is one example of such a technology. On behalf of the National Institute of Justice, RTI International and the RAND Corporation convened the Court Appearances Through Telepresence Advisory Workshop in November 2018 as part of the Priority Criminal Justice Needs Initiative. The telepresence workshop was designed to explore the potential benefits and burdens of telepresence technology and identify innovative solutions for addressing concerns regarding the use of these technologies for criminal court appearances. Participants acknowledged the potential benefits of telepresence technology in expediting pretrial and trial case processing; providing cost savings; and expanding the ability of victims, witnesses, language interpreters, and other individuals to participate. However, the panel members also discussed the potential disadvantages of telepresence technology, which can result in a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights or increase the risk of an unfavorable outcome. Participants also expressed the need for detailed technical standards and stakeholder-specific trainings that ensure the proper setup and high-quality multipurpose use of telepresence technology in court. Given the complexity of the issues involved, the participants emphasized the need to enable state and local courts to handle data collection and storage in a manner that preserves the trial record.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Intimate partner abuse solution (IPAS) programs were first developed in the 1970s and have historically been referred to as batterer intervention programs. Although these programs are now known by different labels and apply different approaches and philosophies, collectively they are designed to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV) by holding perpetrators accountable for their behavior and prioritizing safety and justice for victims. Despite widespread adoption and use of IPAS programs by court systems and communities around the United States, there remains inconsistent and limited information on their effectiveness. The authors of this report convened a panel of experts to better understand the needs of these programs. In a three-session virtual workshop, the group discussed the programs, challenges, and solutions and identified 33 high-priority needs, which cover four major areas: content covered in current IPAS programs; program implementation; connections between IPAS programs and criminal justice and community entities; and challenges in conducting rigorous research on IPAS programs.