Examining the Gap Between Prosecutor Attitudes and Decisions: Case Prioritization Through Case Elimination Mechanisms in Driving With a Suspended License Cases

• Author: Maria E. Arndt
• DOI: 10.1177/07340168211061162
• Published date: 01 June 2022
• Date: 01 June 2022
• Subject Matter: Articles

Examining the Gap Between

Prosecutor Attitudes and

Decisions: Case Prioritization

Through Case Elimination

Mechanisms in Driving With

a Suspended License Cases

Maria E. Arndt

Abstract

Prosecutors are granted considerable discretion, particularly for misdemeanors. The current study

assesses the processing of misdemeanor driving with suspended license (DWSL) cases. Using inter-

view and administrative data from a Florida jurisdiction, the study first examines prosecutorial atti-

tudes about case elimination mechanisms—declination, dismissal, and diversion—then evaluates the

extent to which prosecutors’views about handling DWSL cases and racial disparities in the legal sys-

tem are reflective of case processing outcomes. Results indicate prosecutors view case prioritization

as important, though it is unclear how they achieve it. Despite a reluctance to decline cases when the

elements of an offense are supported by evidence, prosecutors acknowledge they cannot pursue all

offenses if there is onlymarginal public safety return. Contemporaneous administrative data show that

DWSL cases were routinely pursued in 2017: nearly all DWSL cases were filed, a third were dis-

missed, and 11% were diverted. Regression analysis also demonstrates that prosecutors’views on

racial and ethnic disparities are somewhat aligned with the case processing decisions for DWSL

cases processed in 2017. These findings are discussed in terms of their implications for prosecutorial

policy, practice, and the effects of prosecutorial discretion for low-level cases on communities.

Keywords

prosecutorial discretion, misdemeanors, racial disparities, prioritization

Prosecutors are granted substantial discretion in criminal case processing (Davis, 2018), but they

have historically not been subject to the same level of scrutiny as other criminal justice agents

(Bushway & Piehl, 2001). Prosecutorial research, although having made strides recently, is still in

Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, Miami, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Maria E. Arndt, Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida International University, Miami, 11200 SW 8th St, Miami,

FL 33199, USA.

Email: marnd001@fiu.edu

Article

Criminal Justice Review

2022, Vol. 47(2) 243–268

© 2021 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168211061162

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

its infancy (Johnson, 2014; Johnson & Lee, 2013; Ulmer et al., 2007). Existing studies on prosecu-

tion largely focus on felonies and serious offenders (Albonetti, 1986; Spohn & Holleran, 2001;

Spohn et al., 2014). A smaller body of scholarship has examined misdemeanor cases

(Kohler-Hausmann, 2018; Natapoff, 2011, 2015; Roberts, 2013), yet misdemeanors constitute the

bulk of criminal caseloads (Worden & Clark, 2019). Prosecutorial discretion is particularly vast

and unregulated for lower-level offenses (Stevenson & Mayson, 2018).

Most prosecutors’offices cannot handle all referred cases (Brown, 2012), so several mecha-

nisms for streamlining case processing have evolved. One common method to expedite case dis-

pensation is plea bargaining, which reduces the burden of taking every case to trial; 95% of cases

are disposed of through guilty pleas (Devers, 2011). Other mechanisms focus on caseload man-

agement rather than expedition (Ostrom & Hanson, 1999; Ostrom et al., 2018). Refusal to file

charges, diversion, and post-filing case dismissal are vital instruments that prosecutorial offices

can use to dispose of cases efficiently, manage their workloads, and prioritize more serious

offenses.

One understudied area in which prosecutors exercise discretion is in dealing with minor traffic

offenses, such as Driving with a Suspended License (DWSL). Most DWSL cases referred by law

enforcement do not involve traffic accidents and only 7% of all traffic accidents resulting in fatalities

involve a person with an invalid or suspended driver’s license (Carnegie & Eger, 2009). Furthermore,

a nontrivial percentage of suspended licenses that subsequently result in DWSL charges are due to

minor traffic infractions, failure to pay child support, or other administrative infractions (Pawasarat &

Stetzer, 1998). Carnegie and Eger’s report showed 36% of instances in which a person had their

license suspended were due to non-driving related civil infractions including unpaid fines.

Moreover, only 3.4% of drivers who had their license suspended one or more times were involved

in traffic accidents during a suspension period. These statistics indicate that in many cases, DWSL

charges are a signal of indigence rather than of dangerous driving habits (Carnegie & Eger,

2009). In this context, prosecutors can use rejection, diversion, and dismissal after the defendant

obtains a valid license to reduce DWSL caseload, thus alleviating the number low-income defendants

entering the legal system.

1

Despite the low risk of traffic accidents posed by defendants charged with DWSL, the penalties

for these charges can be significant.

2

DWSL charges carry collateral consequences for defendants

including potential loss of employment due to an inability to drive, loss of public housing, and sub-

sequent financial hardships (Brady, 2018; Corkrey, 2003). Given that traffic stops are the most

common form of law enforcement and legal contact and yet remain vastly understudied (Davis et

al., 2018), examining the connection between prosecutorial attitudes toward case elimination and

decision making in DWSL cases is important for both prosecutors and DWSL defendants. In

Florida, public transportation in large cities is poor compared to other urban centers. There is evi-

dence that low-income individuals in Florida who do not have access to adequate public transporta-

tion experience negative health outcomes (Daley et al., 2011) and those who have their licenses

suspended have difficulty finding and maintaining employment (Pawasarat & Stetzer, 1998).

Thus, prosecutorial policy has far-reaching effects beyond leading to criminal records. Low-level

offenses far outnumber more serious crimes which necessitates more attention that has largely

been paid to felonies (Kohler-Hausmann, 2018).

Using interview and administrative data collected from a mid-sized urban State Attorney’sOffice

in Florida, this study first assesses prosecutorial attitudes about case elimination mechanisms

3

—

rejection at filing, dismissal, and diversion—and then evaluates the extent to which views about

their role in criminal case processing, how to handle DWSL cases, and racial and ethnic disparities

are reflective of actual case processing outcomes. Finally, using a multinomial logistic regression

model, the current study assesses extralegal disparities for these decision points and compares

these results to interview responses.

244 Criminal Justice Review 47(2)