Substance Abuse Evaluations (SASSI) in DWI cases

friscolaw@gmail.com (Hunter Biederman) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:31:23 -0800

I have always been bothered by one of the ramifications of a DWI conviction: The Substance Abuse Evaluation.

I am all for the premise and theory behind it.

If you are place on probation following a conviction for DWI, you are required by law to take a substance abuse evaluation, and perform any conditions imposed. This can be something as small as "no alcohol while on probation," or larger (very time consuming) things like attending AA several times per week, or going to an intensive inpatient or outpatient program.

The point of requiring counseling for DWI offenders is obvious. I have no problem with that. Also, the premise that a counselor makes the decisions instead of a judge or prosecutor makes sense as well. Us lawyers (or "law talking guys") do not necessarily know what the best treatment plan.

Here is the problem: The offender is usually simply given a short, one page "SASSI - Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory." It is described by the maker as "A one-page paper and pencil test that identifies people who suffer from substance dependence." This simple quiz, magically can tell what a person's substance problems are, and how to fix them. Oh yeah, even according to SASSI information, training required for administration, is checked off "No."

The reason this came up to me, was a client of mine that was placed on probation took this quiz. Then, after about a 10 minute multiple choice quiz, he was ordered by the court to attend an intensive outpatient substance abuse treatment program. This was way more than he bargained for. Oh yeah, he is required to pay for it as well (the SASSI and the treatment program).

I couldn't help but feel that it was unjust that this occurred after his negotiated plea. Not only that, I was troubled by how a one page multiple choice quiz could so vastly affect someones life time wise and monetarily.

When I spoke to the counselor about my client's recommended treatment, I asked him if I could take a look at one of the blank tests. I really just wanted to see it so I could prepare my clients for what they are in for if they are convicted. I was told, that I was not allowed to see one.

Funny thing is, I went online, and found several places to order the SASSI forms from. I have contemplated ordering a some, along with posting the "good answers." I was actually pretty surprised I couldn't find anything about suggested (or not suggested) answers online. Maybe I wasn't looking hard enough.

I'm curious if any other attorneys have run into major problems with the SASSI quiz.

No More Live License Suspension Hearings?

friscolaw@gmail.com (Hunter Biederman) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:14:06 -0800

If DPS gets their way, yes.. all License Suspension Hearing will be by phone. So the Administrative Law Judge will never be able to look you, the lawyers, or the officer in the eyes.

Thanks to Grits for Breakfast for posting on Criminal Justice Agencies Under Review, and discussing the Sunset process, which reviews some of the criminal justice agencies. DPS's report is here.

Although not pointed out yet in Grits' post, of utmost importance in the DWI world, is their review of the ALR, or License Suspension process.

The Sunset review has made very disturbing recommendations:

4.1 - Require hearings to be held by telephone, and allow witnesses to testify by
telephone, unless the judge finds that an in-person hearing or appearance is
necessary for the fair administration of justice.

First of all, this is problematic, because it is nearly impossible to judge the credibility of a witness over the phone. Why do you think in criminal trials, the witnesses must appear live? We all know that in every case, and administrative judge will never find that an "in-person hearing" is necessary. How would they even know in advance of the hearing without knowing any of the facts yet. Adding in that provision is simply a farce that the authors know will never take place -- but an attempt to make it look like a fair rule.

4.2 - Require affidavits of the breath test operators or breath test supervisors to
be admissible without the witness’s appearance unless the judge finds that
justice requires their presence.

Again, how about the right to confront your accuser? And again, how would the judge know, in advance of the hearing, if justice requires their presence? If the judge does know the facts of the case in advance, then obviously there is something very unfair going on. How does one cross examine an affidavit?

4.3 - Require the defense to request breath test operators and breath test
supervisors by subpoena.

Why? Just so the judge can deny the request? The defense is not who initiated these proceedings... it is DPS who is attempting to take away someone's license. Should they have the burden of proof and need to bring the BTO's and technical supervisors? The State knows that it cost a lot money to get a subpoena issued and served, and that is why they came up with this rule. Also, what happens if the judge denies the request for subpoena?

The bottom line is, having your license taken away is absolutely devastating to many people. I would bet that 99.9% of people reading this -- heck, making the decisions on this commission, drive every single day. If you are going to take away something so fundamentally important as someone's right to drive, the least you can do is give that person some due process, and let them confront their accusers.

Frisco DWI Lawyer & Attorney Blog

Substance Abuse Evaluations (SASSI) in DWI cases

No More Live License Suspension Hearings?