2012-2013 Sobriety
Checkpoint
Program
Pre-Operational Training
By the
California Office of Traffic Safety
October – November 2012
1
Agenda
Mobilization Periods
 Media Objectives
 Data Collection/Reporting
 Checkpoint Operations
 Checkpoint Supplies
 OTS Contacts

2
Funding for this program was provided by a
grant from the
California Office of Traffic Safety
Through the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
3
2012-2013
Mobilization Periods


Winter Holiday Mobilization
 December 14th – January 1, 2013
Summer/Labor Day Mobilization
 August 16 – September 2, 2013
4
Media Objective –
Should issue a kick off press release
using the template that will be supplied
by UCB prior to your first checkpoint.

5
Media Objectives for the Mobilization
Periods

If there’s an AVOID campaign in your
county, notify the AVOID Regional
Coordinator of locations/dates/times as
early as possible

The AVOID Coordinator will release a joint
multi-agency press release to all major
media in the region.
6
Media Objectives for the Mobilization
Periods

Should distribute to local community
papers, a press release for each
checkpoint operation

If there are multiple checkpoints within a
7-day period, use a single press release
7
Media Objectives for Outside the
Mobilization Periods

Distribute to local media, a press release
for each checkpoint operation

If there are multiple checkpoints within a 7day period, use a single press release
8
Media Objectives

To enhance overall general deterrence,
OTS recommends that the exact
checkpoint location or an approximate
location not be given to the media.
9
Reporting of Drugs and DUI Drugs
to the Media
Any DUI Drug-impaired arrests made as the
result of the checkpoint operation should be
incorporated into the after-action media news
release.
If it’s marijuana be sure to list it out separately.
10
Media Objectives

Should use California’s DUI tagline on all
news releases and checkpoint publication
materials:
Report Drunk Drivers. Call 911.
11
Media Objectives

If using the OTS press release template,
there is no need to obtain OTS approval in
advance.

If a non-OTS press release format/copy is
used, it is recommended you submit to
OTS Public Information Officer at
pio@ots.ca.gov at least 14 days in
advance of the operation (or ASAP before
each checkpoint).
12
Media Objectives
Should send to SafeTREC:

All press releases, media advisories, alerts
and other press materials

Copies of all newspaper articles and short
descriptions of broadcast news stories
13
Media Objectives

For combination DUI/DL checkpoints,
agencies should issue press releases
that indicates Drivers Licenses will be
checked at the DUI/Drivers License
checkpoint.
14
Media
Potential News Release Material

According to NHTSA, sobriety checkpoint programs
can yield considerable cost savings: $6 for every $1
spent.

According to NHTSA, sobriety checkpoints have
provided the most effective documented results of
any of the DWI enforcement strategies.

The DMV reports unlicensed drivers are 4.9 times
more likely to cause a fatal crash than a licensed
driver.
15
Media
Potential News Release Material

The checkpoint will be staffed by officers
trained in the detection of alcohol and drug
impairment to provide on-the-spot
assessments of drivers suspected of drug
impairment.

The primary purpose of a DUI Checkpoint is
to increase awareness, deter impaired driving
and to arrest those drivers who are found to
be under the influence.
16
Media
Potential News Release Material

All checkpoints are conducted in accordance
with the guidelines for DUI checkpoint
operations outlined in the California Supreme
Court decision, Ingersoll v. Palmer.

The checkpoint location was chosen because it
has a history of having a high incidence of
alcohol crashes and/or arrests - safety was also
an important consideration
17
Future OTS Funding Decisions

When making funding decisions for the next round of
proposals, OTS will look more closely at the number of
vehicles through the checkpoint, drivers interviewed,
SFST’s, and DUI arrests taking into account the cost of the
checkpoint operation

According to a new NHTSA report, checkpoint “contacts”
would be the best measure of checkpoint effectiveness
18
Schedule C – Data Reporting
Requirements
Speaking the Same Language
19
Data Collection
Alcohol-involved Fatalities – Victims killed in
collisions where a party (driver, pedestrian or
bicyclist) was classified as Had Been Drinking
(HBD-under influence, HBD-not under influence or
HBD-impairment unknown - CHP).
Alcohol-involved Injuries – Victims injured in
collisions where a party (driver, pedestrian or
bicyclist) was classified as Had Been Drinking
(HBD-under influence, HBD-not under influence or
HBD-impairment unknown (CHP-SWITRS)..
20
Data Collection
Traffic Fatalities – Deaths resulting from motor
vehicle traffic collisions, where the victim dies within
30 days for the collision (CHP- SWITRS).
Traffic Injuries – Victims sustaining injuries as a result
result
of
a motor
of a motor
vehiclevehicle
traffic collision.
traffic collision.
This would
This would
include victims with the extent of injury classified as
severely wounded, other visible injuries, or
complaint of pain. Victims killed are not included as
injured (CHP - SWITRS).
21
Data Collection
Vehicles passing through DUI checkpoints –
Total number of vehicles that passed
through the checkpoint, regardless of
whether or not drivers were contacted.
22
Data Collection
Drivers Contacted – The initial driver contact by an
officer on the line to observe possible signs of
impairment (brief verbal greeting/observation, not
secondary screening/FSTs)
Field Sobriety Tests (FST) Administered – Number
of drivers displaying signs of being under the
influence, who are pulled aside to determine level
of impairment by administering an FST.
23
Data Collection
DUI Arrests (Alcohol) - Drivers arrested for DUI
when alcohol is presumed/determined to be the
intoxicant (When unknown if drugs also a factor of
impairment)
DUI Drug Impairment Arrest - Drivers arrested for
DUI when drugs presumed/determined to be an
intoxicant. 23152 (a) VC
24
Data Collection
Drug Arrests - Any arrest/citations issued for
illegal drugs: i.e.- possession,
transportation, possession for sale, etc...
(Does not include under the influence of
drugs - non-DUI related, nor Marijuana
Infraction)
Criminal Arrests (Felony in custody) - Those
Felony Arrests not associated with a driving
violation nor a drug arrest
25
Data Collection
Repeat DUI Warrant Service Operation – A program
consisting of pulling DUI warrants and visiting the
address on record in an attempt to contact the
person named on the warrant.
Warrant Service Attempts – A DUI warrant is pulled
and a visit to the address on record is made in an
attempt to contact the person named on the warrant.
Warrants Served – A DUI warrant is pulled, and the
person on the warrant is contacted & arrested.
26
Data Collection
Court Sting – An operation targeting DUI offenders
with suspended or revoked drivers' licenses who,
upon leaving court, are observed driving. If the
offender is observed driving, he/she is
cited/arrested.
27
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)

48”X48”, “DUI /Driver’s License Checkpoint Ahead”, black
lettering on orange background, with spring post stand or
tripod stand.

Other signs must be MUTCD compliant and retro-reflective,
with spring stand, Tripod stand or A-frame barricade
Maximum Reimbursable Cost Per Item $400.00
28
29
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)

Traffic Control Cones – 28” minimum, Orange w/reflective sleeves.
Maximum Reimbursable Cost per item $30

Traffic Control Vests – FHWA federal guideline compliant.
Maximum Reimbursable Cost per item $45

PAS Devices / Supplies
Maximum Reimbursable Cost per item $1,500
30
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)

Lighting System / Generator




Lighting stands or carts
Heavy duty extension cables
Generator
May not exceed $4999.00 total
31
Checkpoint Supplies (recommended)
 Your grant agreement will
give you the total amount
that can be claimed in the
grant period for checkpoint
supplies.
32
Checkpoint
Operations
33
Checkpoint Operations
According to NHTSA, two-thirds of all
motor vehicle fatalities between the hours
of midnight and 3 a.m. occurred in
alcohol-impaired-driving crashes, and
more than half (55%) of drivers involved in
fatal crashes at those hours, were
alcohol-impaired. So……
•
Checkpoint Operations
…..If at all practicable it is
recommended that
checkpoint operations run
until 0300 hours.
35
Checkpoint Operations
Because checkpoint operations limit the
interview to (30 to 60 seconds), up to half
of the over-the-limit drivers passing
through a sobriety checkpoint are not
apprehended – Alcohol and Highway
Safety – A Review of the State of
Knowledge (NHTSA 2011). So……
36
Checkpoint Operations
……To better identify and apprehend Drug
impaired drivers in addition to Alcohol
impaired drivers, it is highly recommended
that all personnel assigned to staff the
greeting lane of the checkpoint be Drug
Recognition Experts (DRE's) and/or Advanced
Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
(ARIDE) trained sworn officers. At the
very minimum, all officers contacting drivers
in the greeting lane should be NHTSA
Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST)
trained and certified.
37
Checkpoint Operations


Each checkpoint should
be highly publicized and
visible.
OTS does not fund or
support independent DL
checkpoints.
38
Checkpoint Operations
Unless approved by OTS
in advance, grant
funds cannot be used
for DUI/DL
checkpoints operating
before 1800 hours
39
Checkpoint Operations


OTS does not fund (i.e., no reimbursements
for) planned saturation patrols in DUI Mini
Grant programs.
EXCEPTION: Inclement Weather
If inclement weather occurs after overtime
expenses have been contractually obligated
AND the weather compromises the safety of
the officers or the public, then the
checkpoint(s) may be switched to saturation
patrols
40
According to an opinion by
the California State Attorney
General’s Office and your
OTS grant agreement, all
DUI/DL checkpoint
operations should have at
least one sign with these
words:
“DUI/Drivers License
Checkpoint Ahead.”
Note: While additional warning signs can and should be used as necessary or as
desired, there should be at least one sign in use in advance of the checkpoint
operation that uses these words on a single sign.
41
42
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
January 1, 2012 among the new sections of
the California Vehicle was §2814.2.
§2814.2 restricts the ability of law enforcement
to seize a vehicle at a checkpoint when the
driver’s only offense is driving without a valid
license.
43
Checkpoints, AB353 and
12500s
§2814.2
The key language of the statute is
§2814.2(b):
Notwithstanding Section 14602.6 or
14607.6, a peace officer or any
other authorized person shall not
cause the impoundment of a
vehicle at a sobriety checkpoint if
the driver’s only offense is a
violation of Section 12500.
44
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
First, §2814.2 only applies
at checkpoints. It is not the
law during routine traffic
stops or other interactions
between law enforcement
and the motoring public. It
is a checkpoint specific
provision of the vehicle
code.
45
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
Second, §2814.2 only
applies to drivers who are
in violation of California
Vehicle Code section
§12500 and only
§12500. If the driver is
subject to any other
offense that may invoke an
impound process, then
§2814.2 does not apply.
46
Checkpoints, AB353 and 12500s
Third, §2814.2 only
prevents the
impoundment of a
vehicle. It does not
block the removal of a
vehicle.
47
So, what can you do?
§2814.2 sets up a
procedure that officers
must follow when
confronted with a §12500
driver at a checkpoint.
48
So, what can you do?
When an officer encounters a
driver at a checkpoint who is
§12500, and only §12500,
the officer should issue the
driver a citation for a violation
of CVC §12500. The driver
should not be permitted to
continue driving the vehicle
down the road. So, what’s to
be done with the vehicle?
49
So, what can you do?
§2814.2 provides that the registered
owner of a vehicle seized at a
checkpoint without a valid driver
because of a §12500 violation (note:
§12500 violation only, not §23152 or
any other section) has until the
conclusion of the checkpoint to claim
the vehicle. (See, §2814.2(c))
50
So, what can you do?
Law enforcement should attempt
reasonable efforts to locate the
registered owner in order to
effectuate the authorized release
of the vehicle to a properly
licensed driver.
51
Summary
•In keeping with your department’s policies, law
enforcement can and should still impound vehicles
seized at checkpoints from drivers with suspended
or revoked licenses
•Under §2814.2, law enforcement is no longer
permitted to impound a vehicle pursuant to
§14602.6 if the sole offense is §12500 (driving
without a valid license) at a checkpoint. The
vehicle may only be removed, and then only
once the registered owner is given an opportunity
to rescue the vehicle prior to the conclusion of
the checkpoint.
52
Summary
•Law enforcement should not,
except at its own peril, release a
vehicle seized pursuant to
§2814.2 at the direction of the
driver. Only when the driver and
the registered owner are one in
the same can the driver direct
what is to be done with the
vehicle.
53
But, what about those stopped by chase
motors, rovers or those outside of the
checkpoint lane?
The "checkpoint" is not defined
in the statute. One opinion is
that it is the point in space and
time where the vehicle is
stopped and the driver is
contacted.
Could there be others?
54
Three primary case
laws related to DUI
Checkpoints
•Ingersoll v Palmer – State of California - 1987
•People v Banks – State of California - 1993
•Michigan State Police v Sitz – US Supreme Court - 1990
55
Of the three primary
cases, Ingersoll is the
one we rely upon the
most here in
California
There are 8 basic requirements in Ingersoll
56
Ingersoll 8
(1) Whether the decision to establish the checkpoint, the selection of
the site, and the procedures for operation are established by
supervisory law enforcement personnel
(2) Whether motorists are stopped according to a neutral formula;
(3) Whether adequate safety precautions are taken, such as proper
lighting, warning signs, and signals, and whether clearly identifiable
official vehicles and personnel are used;
(4) Whether the location of the checkpoint was determined by a
policymaking official, and was reasonable;
(5) Whether the time the checkpoint was conducted and its duration
reflect “good judgment” on the part of law enforcement officials;
(6) Whether the checkpoint exhibits sufficient indicia of its official
nature (to reassure motorists of the authorized nature of the stop);
(7) Whether the average length and nature of detention is minimized
(8) Whether the checkpoint is preceded by publicity.
57
About That Publicity Requirement……
After Ingersoll, there were two cases that directly
addressed the publicity issue and they are:
Michigan v Sitz (US Supreme Court)
&
People v Banks (California Supreme Court)
In these cases the Courts held
that advanced publicity is not
necessary for a checkpoint to
be valid but……
58
.... Extensive research
has shown that a high
level of publicity is
essential to a successful
impaired driving
enforcement program.
59
NEW RECENT CASE
San Francisco
PEOPLE v. ALVARADO
The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.
Walter ALVARADO, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 2404632.
February 07, 2011
60
Alvarado contended that the prosecution failed to:
(1) Establish that the selection of the checkpoint site and
the procedures for the checkpoint operation were made
and established by supervisory personnel
(2) Establish that the officers employed a neutral
formula for stopping vehicles during the checkpoint
(3) Demonstrate that the checkpoint location was
reasonable and effective in achieving the government
interest of deterring drunk driving
(4) Offer any evidence as to the length and nature of
the checkpoint detentions
(5) Offer any evidence as to the length and nature of
the checkpoint detentions
61
Alvarado
 Role of Supervisory Personnel
The People introduced evidence that a captain ordered
the checkpoint. Undisputed evidence showed that it
was the Traffic Sergeant who endorsed and approved
the procedures actually used. The procedures
apparently endorsed by the sergeant differed
appreciably from those
(1) Specified by the captain
(2) On the forms used by officers at the scene
Alvarado
 Neutral Formula
 Alvarado argued that the trial court erred in finding
that the checkpoint operated under a neutral formula
because the Officer did not follow the instructions on
the official “Sobriety Checkpoint Form.” But it appears
that the officer on the scene did employ neutral
criteria, albeit a combination of two systems employed
as traffic conditions dictated.
Alvarado
 Neutral Formula
 While the Officer testified he used this “five cars
at a time” method “through the entire evening,”
there were occasions when he gathered cars in
groups of less than five. The Officer did this due
to the nature of traffic flow, i.e., there may not
have been five cars available and the police
could not wait for an additional one or two more
cars.
Alvarado
 Site Selection
 Ingersoll stated: “The sites chosen [for
sobriety checkpoints] should be those which
will be most effective in achieving the
governmental interest; i.e., on roads having a
high incidence of alcohol related accidents
and/or arrests. Safety factors must also be
considered in choosing an appropriate
location.” (Ingersoll, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p.
1343.) “[A] sobriety checkpoint would be
improper at a location without any significant
traffic or incidence of drunk driving․” (Id. at p.
1344.)
Alvarado
 Site Selection
 There was no evidence explaining the selection
of the specific checkpoint site used here. To be
sure, there was evidence that the site had been
used before. But there was no evidence that the
intersection at issue had a high incidence of
alcohol-related accidents.
Alvarado
 Length and Nature of Detention
 Alvarado argued that the trial court erred by
finding that the issue of timing and duration did
not apply in the present case, and that there
was no evidence proffered below on the length
and nature of the checkpoint detentions.
(Compare Ingersoll, supra, 43 Cal .3d at p. 1327
[28 seconds for average detention, six minutes
for those given field sobriety tests].) The trial
court found that the factor did not apply in this
case. The trial court was in error.
Alvarado
 Lack of Advance Publicity
 “Advance publicity is important to the maintenance of a
constitutionally permissible sobriety checkpoint. Publicity both
reduces the intrusiveness of the stop and increases the
deterrent effect of the roadblock.” (Ingersoll, supra, 43 Cal.3d at
p. 1346.) No such evidence was presented below.

Alvarado, citing Banks, supra, 6 Cal.4th 926, agrees that the
lack of advance publicity alone will not render a sobriety
checkpoint unconstitutional, but suggests that, in conjunction
with other failures, the lack of advance publicity renders the
sobriety checkpoint in this case unreasonable.

Where lack of advance publicity is the sole infirmity in a checkpoint
procedure, Banks instructs us to deny the motion to suppress; but
where other problems are found, this factor may tip the scales in
favor of granting the motion.
Alvarado
 Court Ruling
 Here, the record shows that the People did
not sustain their burden as to at least:
1. The role of supervisory personnel in prescribing the
procedures to be used at the checkpoint
2. The rationale for selecting the particular location used for the checkpoint.
3. The length of detentions
4. Advance publicity
The Court also noted the thin evidence of neutral criteria used
when fewer than five cars were pulled over at a time.
Alvarado
TSRP Legal Opinion as it relates to Alvarado on the issues
not addressed by the Court.
1. Data has to drive the site selection process. Data is seen as "neutral."
In Alvarado the people relied on a "we always do it here" argument.
We all see how that went. Data, data, data!
2. The role of supervisory personnel. This is perhaps the most troubling aspect
of the case. The court points out that a Capt made decisions, but these
decisions were not followed by, and were in fact superseded by a Sergeant.
Furthermore, what the Sgt. order differed from the directives in the hands of
officers on scene.
3. Yes, there are defense attorneys that challenge the chute method as being
non-neutral. This opinion says the chute method is okay. It also okays
switching between neutral systems when traffic pattern changes. There are
also other California appellate ruling that okays the chute method.
Alvarado
Issues directly addressed by the Court Re: Length and
Nature of the Detentions and Publicity
1. Ingersoll notes, “no hard and fast rules as to timing or duration
can be laid down, but law enforcement officials will be expected to
exercise good judgment in setting times and durations, with an eye
to effectiveness of the operation. (In Ingersoll, 28 seconds for
average detention, six minutes for those given field sobriety tests.)
While the People's brief suggests that such evidence was
provided, it consisted of nothing except a statement that the
procedures were designed to “keep traffic flowing.”
2. Where lack of advance publicity is the sole infirmity in a checkpoint
procedure, Banks instructs us to deny the motion to suppress; but
where other problems are found, this factor may tip the scales in
favor of granting the motion
Fraud Awareness
and
Financial Stewardship
Fraud Awareness
and
Financial Stewardship
Federal grant funds are awarded for a
specific “public purpose” and grantees
must use those funds within certain
parameters.
Unfortunately, fraud, waste and misuse of
these funds can and does occur.
United States Office of the
Inspector General (OIG)
Investigations by the federal Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) and NHTSA have
detected some cases of fraud involving
grantees receiving federal highway
safety grant funds.
THE OIG INVESTIGATION
 How was the problem discovered?
– It was an accident!
– Investigation involved: Local Police
Department/HSO/FBI/OIG/NHTSA
– Focus on overtime STEP grants (OP, DWI,
– Speeding & Other)
– Significant Local/State/National media
coverage
– OIG Investigation Broadened Nationally
OIG INVESTIGATIONS RESULTS
 $506,000 identified as misused in 4 police
departments.
 State has or will pay back to NHTSA
 24 Officers removed or resigned; 1 retired.
 25 Officers indicted. Adjudication in process.
 Investigations are continuing. The dollar
amount and number of officers involved will
likely increase.
SCHEMES ASSOCIATED WITH
LAW ENFORCEMENT
GRANT FRAUD
 Falsification of Log sheets
 Falsification of Tickets
 Misuse of “Administrative Time”
FALSIFICATION OF LOG SHEETS
 Officers misreport hours worked, time
tickets were written, number of tickets
written to get paid for time not worked.
 Sometimes with tacit approval of supervisor.
 Discovered when officers’ log sheets were
compared to actual time worked based on
dispatch logs, ticket records, vehicle logs.
FALSIFICATION OF TICKETS
 Discovered when an officer’s ticket book
was found with completed ticket
information but no times noted.
 Times omitted from tickets until log
sheet completed.
 False time entered on ticket to appear as
if written during overtime shift.
OTHER EXAMPLES OF FRAUD
(CONTINUED)
FALSIFYING DOCUMENTS –
THIRD PARTY CONTRACTS
 State Highway Safety Office (SHSO) contracts with a government
for a highway safety grant who subcontracts with contractor for
services.
 Grant Agreement specifies staff time to be billed at $125/HR
 Also, work performed by subcontractor is to be billed at the actual
subcontractor rate of $75/HR
–
–
–
–
–
Sub‐grantee contracts with a 3rd party
Sub‐grantee submits voucher to SHSO at the $125/HR
Sub‐grantee submitted false invoices from sub‐contractors
Formal complaint by a sub‐contractor
Audit and forwarded to OIG for further investigation
OTHER EXAMPLES OF FRAUD
(CONTINUED)
CONTRACTOR FRAUD




SHSO contracted with non‐profit agency and individuals to do outreach,
presentations and training.
Contractor submitted false vendor invoices
SHSO accountant identified inconsistencies
State investigation uncovered numerous fraudulent issues
– Two individuals indicted for felony theft, filing false public records and payroll
fraud
– State to reimburse $265,000 to NHTSA
– Contractors submitted false activity reports for work that did not occur




First contractor discovered by anonymous tip
State investigation broadened to other contractors
Four individuals indicted for felony theft, filing false public records and
payroll fraud
State to reimburse $89,000 to NHTSA
OTHER EXAMPLES OF FRAUD (CONTINUED)
LAW ENFORCEMENT – IMPROPER REIMBURSEMENTS
 SHSO provided overtime dollars to a law
enforcement agency
– Chief used the funds to cover gaps in the
department’s general operating expenses
– Audit resulted from an anonymous tip
– State investigation found 281 discrepancies.
– State to reimburse $45,664 to NHTSA
Lack of Training to Supervisor
and
Officers
 Training
 Grant Management
 Prevention
FRAUD RISK FACTORS:
MANAGEMENT/INTERNAL
CONTROLS
 Two of the most common contributing
factors:
– Lack of communication regarding program
management.
– Lack of supervision in grant procedures.
FRAUD RISK FACTORS:
INTERNAL CONTROL
WEAKNESSES
LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
 Lack of training to supervisors and
officers:
– Failure to emphasize the unique conditions
of specific grant programs in recruitment
and in-service courses.
FRAUD RISK FACTORS:
INTERNAL CONTROL
WEAKNESSES
LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS
 Lack of supervision in grant procedures:
– Failure to provide oversight during overtime
patrols.
– Absence of a time and attendance quality
control check that can easily identify log
sheet falsification.
HOW DO INVESTIGATIONS
HAPPEN?










Formal Complaints
Anonymous Tips
Investigating Agency
OIG
FBI
State Auditor or Internal Auditor
District Attorney
Considerations
Magnitude and Scope
Duration, Number of instances
Building Supervision into Grant
Procedures
Effective Grant Activity Monitoring
Fraud Awareness
and
Financial Stewardship
Important Responsibility
A great partnership
Spread the word
Fraud Awareness
and
Financial Stewardship
 Fraud was detected only in a small
sample of departments but the
investigation is expanding to additional
regions.
 Fraud is not limited to enforcement
grants.
 The ability to detect, prevent and
respond to fraud is very important.
WHAT CAN GRANTEES DO!
 Read your grant agreement and
your terms and conditions in your
grant.
 Maintain written correspondence
with OTS about any program
or budget changes.
 Keep well-organized and complete
accounting books and records
Fraud Awareness
and
Financial Stewardship
QUESTIONS?
California Office of Traffic Safety
LEL Contacts
Ed Gebing
Law Enforcement Liaison
Northern California Region
(916) 509-3027
Ed.Gebing@ots.ca.gov
Bill Ehart
Law Enforcement Liaison
Southern California Region
(916) 509-3028
Bill.Ehart@ots.ca.gov
93
OTS Regional Coordinator
Contact information is available at
http://www.ots.ca.gov
2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
Elk Grove, California 95758
916-509-3030
94
2012-2013 Sobriety Checkpoint
Grant Program Pre-Operational Training:
Contractual and Claim Requirements
By the
University of California, Berkeley
Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center
October – November 2012
96
Agenda







Grant contract
On-line reporting of post-operational data
Due dates (post-operational data)
Claims
Due dates (claims)
Fact Blasts
SafeTREC contacts
97
Your Grant Contains Instructions for
Filing Claims with SafeTREC
• The signatory page shows who can sign
claims
• Schedule A contains the Method of
Procedure, Agency Objectives and
Media Objectives which, if followed,
ensures that your agency will remain in
compliance throughout the grant period
98
Your Grant Contains Instructions for
Filing Claims with SafeTREC
•Schedule B contains the limits for
reimbursements
•Schedule B-1 contains instructions for
submitting a complete claims package
99
You Must Submit Operational Data to
Be Reimbursed
• Post-operational data must be reported
on-line after the applicable quarter
• SafeTrec will email instructions for
reporting the operational data
• Each agency will have a unique log-in and
password
• Agencies will be notified when the
reporting system becomes available in
January
100
Due Dates for Post-Operational Data
Submit post-operational data on-line by:
• January 25, 2013 for checkpoints conducted October –
January 1 (Quarter 1)
• April 30, 2013 for checkpoints conducted January 2 –
March 31 (Quarter 2)
• July 31, 2013 for checkpoints conducted April 1 – June
30 (Quarter 3)
• September 24, 2013 for checkpoints conducted July 1 –
September 2 (Quarter 4)
(For checkpoints conducted September 2-30, please
submit data by October 31)
101
IMPORTANT: How to ensure a smooth
claims process
•
•
Coordinate with the finance department
to create a project code/account in the
city’s general ledger as soon as possible
The finance department must generate a
ledger report(s) to support each claim
(Excel spreadsheets only will not suffice)
*The ledger report should support the claim amount. If
the report does not match, please provide an
explanation or it will significantly delay the
reimbursement process.
102
How to ensure a smooth claims process
• Use the Excel-based claim form for the 20122013 Sobriety Checkpoint Program
• Only SafeTREC can modify the claim form
• The claim form will be available in January
at:
http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/checkpointgrants/2
012_2013checkpoint.html
Typed or handwritten claims will not be accepted!
103
Not to Exceed Contractual Amounts
(Part 1)
Your agency cannot exceed the:
 Grant award amount (grant signature
page and Schedule B)
Maximum reimbursable amount for
checkpoint supplies (Schedule B), if
applicable
104
Not to Exceed Contractual Amounts
(Part 2)
Your agency should abide by the cost per
checkpoint contractual amount; however,
with prior authorization, your agency can
exceed the cost per checkpoint as long as
the agency completes all contractually
obligated checkpoints. Prior authorization
can be obtained by completing the Cost
per Checkpoint Exception form.
105
How to complete a claim
Complete these worksheets:
o Agency Info worksheet (one time only)
o Claim Details for the applicable quarter
o Checkpoint Supplies Details worksheet,
if applicable
The claim form for the quarter will be
populated automatically
106
How to complete a claim
Use the same Excel workbook
(spreadsheets) throughout the grant
period because:
• The Agency Information populates all
quarters’ claims
• The amounts claimed are carried forward
from one quarter to the next
107
Filling in the Agency Info Worksheet
• Use the address listed in Box C of the
grant contract, i.e., the Agency
Authorized to Receive Payments
(notify SafeTREC if the address has
changed)
• SafeTREC will email the purchase
order number
108
Filling in the Agency Info Worksheet
• Fill in all requested dollar amounts so
the formulas programmed into the
spreadsheets will work!
• Obtain the amounts from the grant
contract document
109
See Sample Claim Handout
110
Requirements for FY 2013 Claims
• Break out overtime benefits for each
individual, excluding contract cities
• Provide “unburdened” overtime costs, i.e.,
without benefits
• Ledger reports must support the claimed
amount
111
Requirements for FY 2013 Claims
• Complete a Checkpoint Supplies Form, if
applicable
• Ledger reports must show expenditures
for checkpoint supplies
112
IMPORTANT
• ONLY OTS-approved checkpoint supplies
will be reimbursed. If your agency would
like to purchase an item(s) that would be
invaluable to the checkpoint and is not on
the OTS-approved list, your agency will
need to contact SafeTREC for email
approval. Prior approval must be obtained
before the item is purchased or the supply
cost will be disallowed.
113
Checkpoint Supplies Form
See Sample Claim Handout
114
Completing the Claim
Obtain the correct signature:
– Anyone who signed in Boxes B or D on the
grant document can sign the claim form
– If the Authorizing Official changes, complete
the Change in Authorizing Official form
– To add another signatory, complete the
Additional Signatory form
*Please make sure that the signature is original
(Copies or stamped signatures are not
allowed)
115
After Completing the Claim,
Submit the Claims Package
•
•
•
•
•
Claim
Claim Details
Checkpoint Supplies Form, if applicable
Overtime (OT) slips
Expenditure (or equivalent ledger) report
supporting the claim amount
• Checkpoint supplies invoices/receipts from
the vendor (should include tax)
• Cost per Checkpoint Exception Form, if
applicable
116
The Claims Package for Contract Cities
is Different
•
Contract cities, excluding those agencies where
the sheriff’s department is administering the
grant, must also provide:
– Invoice from the sheriff’s department to the
contract city for grant related services
– The invoice (or attachment) must contain the
contract rates that are the basis for the
sheriff’s department’s invoiced amount
117
Overtime Slips Must be Complete
• Signed by the employee and supervisor
(stamped signatures are not acceptable)
• Annotated, e.g., Sobriety Checkpoint
Program, DUI Grant, or a finance dep’tdesignated number
• Show the start time, end time, and number
of overtime hours
• Show the checkpoint date
118
119
Overtime Slips Must be Complete
• Any missing information on an OT slip will
disqualify that slip
The overtime cost of the hours on
disqualified OT slip (s) will be subtracted
from the claim amount!!
120
Electronic Timesheet System
• If your agency uses an electronic
timesheet system, then submit the
timesheets with a supervisor signature
on the front of the packet to certify the
overtime hours were worked
121
What Costs Are Allowable
• Actual overtime cost for checkpoint
operation(s)
• Benefits accrued to overtime hours, e.g.,
Social Security, Workers Compensation,
Medicare, state-run disability,
unemployment insurance
• Costs of OTS-approved checkpoint
supplies at or below OTS-set unit prices, if
applicable
122
What About Administrative Personnel
• Administrative/clerical personnel are allowable
only if they worked on the checkpoint operation,
e.g., to process the larger than normal volume
of citations and arrest/incident reports. These
reports must be a result of the operation and
required to be processed quickly for distribution
to the courts and the District Attorney's Office,
or to meet statutory time limits. Clerical
overtime incurred before the checkpoint or
more than one business day after the last day
of the checkpoint is not allowable
123
What Costs Are NOT Allowable
• Indirect costs
• Contractual costs, e.g., the cost of a
contract dispatcher (does not apply to
contract city arrangements)
• Checkpoint supplies that are not OTSapproved
• Amounts of checkpoint supplies paid in
excess of OTS-set unit prices
124
What Costs Are NOT Allowable
• Retirement, vision insurance, life
insurance, dental insurance, overhead
fees, and other benefits that are not
accrued to overtime hours
• Meal allowances and uniform allowances
125
What Costs Are NOT Allowable
• Unexpended funds cannot be transferred
for use from one checkpoint operation to
another without prior authorization
126
To be Reimbursed You Must
• Report your post-operational data on-line
• Submit the press release(s)
• Mail in a complete claims package
Emailed/faxed claims are not accepted
because we need the original signature
127
Claims Due Dates
February 15, 2013 for Quarter 1 Claim
May 15, 2013 for Quarter 2 Claim
August 15, 2013 for Quarter 3 Claim
October 31, 2013 for Quarter 4 Claim
(Be aware of your city’s ledger/invoice administrative process
timetable when planning checkpoints in Quarter 4)
Don’t submit claims for $ 0 !!
128
Fact Blasts
Fact Blasts contain important information that
pertains to the Sobriety Checkpoint Program
and your agency will receive them throughout
the grant cycle. Please read each Fact Blast
thoroughly.
129
SafeTREC Contacts
Adrienne Moore
SafeTREC
2614 Dwight Way, #7374
Berkeley, CA 94720-7374
(510) 643 – 7625
(510) 643 – 9922 (fax)
almoore@berkeley.edu
Olivia Pavelchik
SafeTREC
2614 Dwight Way, #7374
Berkeley, CA 94720-7374
(510) 643 – 6556
(510) 643 – 9922 (fax)
obpavel@berkeley.edu
SafeTREC web site: www.safetrec.berkeley.edu
General inquiries: checkpoint@berkeley.edu
FY 2013 Sobriety Checkpoint Mini Grant web site:
http://safetrec.berkeley.edu/checkpointgrants/2012_2013checkpoint.html
130
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
Contacts
Ed Gebing
Law Enforcement Liaison
Northern California Region
(916) 509-3027
ed.gebing@ots.ca.gov
Bill Ehart
Law Enforcement Liaison
Southern California Region
(916) 509-3028
bill.ehart@ots.ca.gov
131
OTS Regional Coordinator
Contact information is available at
http://www.ots.ca.gov
132
OTS Regional Coordinators
For Information about General
Traffic Safety Grants
Contact information is available at
http://www.ots.ca.gov
2208 Kausen Drive, Suite 300
Elk Grove, California 95758
916-509-3030
133