Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Performance Audit
37
270 Washington Street, SW, Suite 1-156 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Phone: (404)657-5220 www.audits.ga.gov Why we did this review The Driver Records program was selected as an audit subject because of the potential for incomplete and inaccurate data in the driver records to impact public safety. DDS’s Customer Service Licensing & Records Division is responsible for maintaining the driver records of over 6.5 million Georgia citizens. About Driver Records DDS receives conviction reports from Georgia courts, law enforcement, and courts from other states. It updates the driver record, records points, and suspends, revokes, or reinstates licenses as necessary. Law enforcement officials and courts use driver record data to determine appropriate charges and sentences for traffic offenses. The records need to be accurate because erroneous or incomplete data can adversely impact public safety, drivers, and revenue collection. Most Georgia courts submit reports electronically to DDS through the Georgia Electronic Conviction Processing System. In 2011, 1.14 million (83%) convictions were reported electronically and 200,000 were submitted in paper form. In fiscal year 2011, DDS expended an estimated $908,000 to process convictions and update driver histories. About $440,000 was spent to process paper citations and $468,000 to process electronic reports. Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Performance Audit Division Greg S. Griffin, State Auditor Leslie McGuire, Director Driver Records Improved monitoring could increase accuracy and completeness of records What we found Overall, the Department of Driver Services (DDS) is taking measures to ensure the integrity of its driver records. However, in order to ensure that the driver records are complete and accurate, DDS should implement additional monitoring controls. DDS would benefit from additional performance measures and procedures for conducting reviews of data quality. Absent such controls, erroneous or incomplete information could be included in the driver record. For example, we reviewed critical data elements in the driver records, and identified problems including incorrect addresses, missing and unreliable conviction case numbers, and missing blood alcohol levels for DUI convictions. In addition, driver records do not include several data elements that are recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or are required by state and federal regulations. For example, state and federal law conflict over how administrative license suspensions for DUIs should be recorded in the driver record. As a result, the state risks losing federal highway funds if it does not change the way these suspensions are recorded. Additionally, NHTSA recommends that driver records include data on critical violations a driver may have received in a prior state of residency. We also reviewed the process for conviction reporting in Georgia and found that DDS should take additional steps to ensure that conviction information it receives from courts is complete and up-to-date. DDS does not have authority to compel the courts to report convictions; however, reporting is required by statute. We surveyed 301 courts that did not report convictions to DDS in 2011. Of the 99 respondents, 28 indicated that they had reportable convictions that had not been forwarded to DDS. In many cases, court personnel indicated they were unaware of the reporting Performance Audit Report No. 12-10 December 2012
Transcript of Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Performance Audit
270 Washington Street, SW, Suite 1-156 Atlanta, Georgia 30334 Phone: (404)657-5220 www.audits.ga.gov
Why we did this review The Driver Records program was selected as an audit subject because of the potential for incomplete and inaccurate data in the driver records to impact public safety. DDS’s Customer Service Licensing & Records Division is responsible for maintaining the driver records of over 6.5 million Georgia citizens.
About Driver Records DDS receives conviction reports from Georgia courts, law enforcement, and courts from other states. It updates the driver record, records points, and suspends, revokes, or reinstates licenses as necessary. Law enforcement officials and courts use driver record data to determine appropriate charges and sentences for traffic offenses. The records need to be accurate because erroneous or incomplete data can adversely impact public safety, drivers, and revenue collection.
Most Georgia courts submit reports electronically to DDS through the Georgia Electronic Conviction Processing System. In 2011, 1.14 million (83%) convictions were reported electronically and 200,000 were submitted in paper form.
In fiscal year 2011, DDS expended an estimated $908,000 to process convictions and update driver histories. About $440,000 was spent to process paper citations and $468,000 to process electronic reports.
Georgia Department of Audits and AccountsPerformance Audit Division
Greg S. Griffin, State AuditorLeslie McGuire, Director
Driver Records
Improved monitoring could increase accuracy and completeness of records
What we found
Overall, the Department of Driver Services (DDS) is taking measures to ensure the integrity of its driver records. However, in order to ensure that the driver records are complete and accurate, DDS should implement additional monitoring controls. DDS would benefit from additional performance measures and procedures for conducting reviews of data quality. Absent such controls, erroneous or incomplete information could be included in the driver record. For example, we reviewed critical data elements in the driver records, and identified problems including incorrect addresses, missing and unreliable conviction case numbers, and missing blood alcohol levels for DUI convictions.
In addition, driver records do not include several data elements that are recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or are required by state and federal regulations. For example, state and federal law conflict over how administrative license suspensions for DUIs should be recorded in the driver record. As a result, the state risks losing federal highway funds if it does not change the way these suspensions are recorded. Additionally, NHTSA recommends that driver records include data on critical violations a driver may have received in a prior state of residency.
We also reviewed the process for conviction reporting in Georgia and found that DDS should take additional steps to ensure that conviction information it receives from courts is complete and up-to-date. DDS does not have authority to compel the courts to report convictions; however, reporting is required by statute. We surveyed 301 courts that did not report convictions to DDS in 2011. Of the 99 respondents, 28 indicated that they had reportable convictions that had not been forwarded to DDS. In many cases, court personnel indicated they were unaware of the reporting
Performance Audit Report No. 12-10 December 2012
requirements. The remaining 71 courts did not have reportable convictions.
In addition to the problems with non-reporting courts, the courts that are reporting convictions are not always doing so in a timely manner. State law requires courts to report offenses within 10 days of the conviction date. However, approximately 300,000 of the 1 million convictions processed (30%) in 2011 did not meet this requirement. As a result, DDS’s driver histories are not up-to-date with convictions, points, and license suspensions. Once DDS receives the convictions, it processes them in a timely manner if no errors detected. If DDS’s edit checks detect errors, then the invalid records are returned to the courts for correction. In 2011, 58,650 records needed correction; of those, 53,449 (91%) had not been resolved and resubmitted to DDS as of August 2012.
What we recommend
DDS should conduct periodic data reviews to identify data errors and should formalize procedures to prevent and detect unauthorized changes. DDS should establish data quality benchmarks to assess the timeliness, accuracy, and completeness of its driver records. For example, DDS could track the percentage of driver records with no missing critical data elements. DDS should also strengthen and formalize its control procedures to better ensure the validity of its driver records. Since the completeness of driver histories is largely dependent on reporting by over 750 Georgia courts, DDS should improve its monitoring of this process. Examples of additional monitoring efforts include: contacting courts that are not reporting any convictions; tracking the number of days from conviction to reporting; and following up on records returned to the courts with errors.
In addition, the General Assembly may want to consider revising state law in regards to administrative license suspensions for DUIs to ensure that Georgia is in compliance with federal regulations and does not risk losing federal highway funds.
Driver Records i
Table of Contents
Purpose of the Audit 1
Background 1
Overview of DDS 1
Reportable Violations and Conviction Processing 2
Suspension, Revocation, and Reinstatement 4
Activity Data 5
Financial Information 6
Findings and Recommendations 8
DDS should improve controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness of its driver
records. 8
The General Assembly should consider revising state law to ensure compliance
with federal requirements. 12
DDS should consider capturing additional information as recommended by best
practices. 12
DDS should improve its monitoring to ensure that all courts are reporting
convictions required by state law. 14
DDS should encourage all courts to report convictions through GECPS and
should consider expanding electronic processing options for out-of-state
convictions. 16
DDS should better monitor courts to ensure that they report convictions in a
timely manner. 17
DDS generally processes convictions in a timely manner if no errors are detected.
However, DDS needs to improve its procedures for resolving errors to ensure that
these convictions are also posted to the driver records in a timely manner. 20
Appendices 23
Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 23
Appendix B: List of Convictions Reportable to DDS 25
Driver Records ii
Driver Records 1
Purpose of the Audit
This report examines the driver records maintained by the Georgia Department of Driver Services (DDS). Specifically, the audit reviewed completeness and accuracy of critical data elements and the conviction reporting process.
A description of the objectives, scope, and methodology used in this review is included in Appendix A. A draft report was provided to DDS, and pertinent responses were incorporated into the report.
Background
Overview of DDS
The General Assembly created DDS to replace the Department of Motor Vehicle Services in 2005. DDS is responsible for maintaining the driving records of over 6.5 million Georgia citizens by recording convictions and court orders, suspending and revoking licenses of dangerous drivers, and reinstating licenses of drivers who have fulfilled the terms of their suspensions. DDS’s responsibilities also include: issuing and renewing drivers’ licenses; investigating driver license fraud; regulating driver safety and education programs; providing motorcycle safety instruction; and certifying ignition interlock device providers.
DDS’s Customer Service Licensing and Records (CSLR) Division is charged with administering driver license laws, rules and regulations, and maintaining the integrity of driver records. Within the Division, the primary responsibility for processing traffic convictions and updating driver histories is split between two units – the Business Standards Unit oversees the electronic processing of traffic convictions and the Records Management Unit oversees the processing of paper transactions. Exhibit 1 shows the organization chart for the CSLR Division, with units responsible for conviction processing highlighted in dark blue.
Driver Records 2
Exhibit 1 Organization Chart Customer Service, Licensing, and Records Division
Reportable Violations and Conviction Processing
Traffic citations are issued by state and local law enforcement officers and are transmitted to the courts for adjudication. If the driver is convicted of the offense, the court levies the penalty, collects the fine, and reports the citation information to DDS. (Speeding violations in which the actual speed was less than 15 mph over the speed limit and parking violations do not have to be reported to DDS.) In addition to traffic-related convictions, courts are required to report convictions for violations of the Georgia Controlled Substance Act, certain underage alcohol violations, and theft involving commercial vehicles.1 A complete list of reportable offenses is included in Appendix B. Courts are to report only those violations for which the defendant is convicted (i.e., paid the fine, plead guilty, found guilty, or forfeited bail). For example, if a charge of driving under the influence (DUI) was reduced to reckless driving, then only the reckless driving charge would be reported. If the defendant does not resolve the citation by paying the fine or attending court, then the court is to report the failure to appear (FTA) to DDS. DDS posts the conviction information onto the driver’s record and, if necessary, applies points for the violation according to the point system established in state law.
State law requires courts to transmit convictions to DDS within 10 days of conviction to be placed on the driver’s record. State law also requires that courts use
1 Courts are not required to report drug or underage alcohol cases in which first offender status is granted unless: the court is suspending the defendant’s licenses as a condition probation; the defendant fails to comply with the terms of probation; or the defendant was convicted of DUI or drugs in violation of O.C.G.A. §§40-6-391(a)(2), (a)(3),(a)(4), or (a)(6).
Division Director
Records Management
(Paper Citations)
Business StandardsField OperationsHeadquarter
Operations
GECPS
(Electronic Citations)
Help Desk
Central Issuance
CDL Compliance
Motorcycle Safety
Program
Source: DDS Documents
Customer Service
Centers
Contact Center
Failure to Appear
(FTA) – Driver does
not respond to a
citation by attending
court and/or paying
the fine
Driver Records 3
DDS’s electronic reporting system to transmit the conviction information. However, some courts still report convictions by mail, email, and fax. The benefit of electronic reporting is that the driver’s history will be updated overnight, which will allow suspensions to take effect immediately. In addition, the electronic system requires less paper filing within the courts and DDS and is more cost-effective. Prior to fiscal year 2011, DDS provided an incentive to courts for electronic reporting by paying the courts $0.40 per electronic conviction report received. However, in July 2010 the law was changed to specify that the $0.40 payment would be made to courts only if funding was provided to DDS. No funding was provided in fiscal year 2011, nor has it been since. DDS’s process for handling convictions reported by paper and electronically is described below.
Paper Reporting – Conviction information received by mail, email, or fax is processed by the Records Management Unit, which consists of 38 employees – eight in the mail/archive group and 30 in validation. The mail/archive group opens and images the citations, and the validation group inputs information and updates the record in the mainframe. The Records Management Unit also processes convictions of Georgia drivers in other states, which accounts for a significant portion of the workload according to program staff. In addition to conviction processing, the Unit is also responsible for responding to any request for information sent via mail (e.g., motor vehicle reports), processing paperwork (e.g., medical certification for commercial drivers’ licenses), handling license reinstatements and the associated fees, and processing certain license suspensions.
Electronic Reporting – DDS’s Business Standards Unit oversees the electronic reporting of convictions, with the equivalent of approximately one full-time employee dedicated to this responsibility. The Georgia Electronic Conviction Processing System (GECPS) is owned and maintained by DDS, and the information is stored in databases residing on the State of Georgia mainframe computer operated by the Georgia Technology Authority (GTA). Each court must obtain the front-end software to submit data, as DDS does not provide for case management, data entry of convictions, or electronic file transmission. Using their own software, courts submit files containing multiple records that can include convictions, FTAs, and FTA release records. DDS receives the files and conducts an initial edit check via the Secure File Transfer Protocol. Files that do not meet the formatting criteria for file layout are rejected and the batch is sent back to the court for correction. Files with no initial errors are loaded into GECPS for nightly processing and undergo a second round of edit checks to identify errors in individual records. Invalid records are returned to the courts while the records without errors are uploaded to DDS’s driver records. Exhibit 2 shows the process for electronic reporting.
Driver Records 4
Exhibit 2 Process for Electronic Conviction Reporting
Suspension, Revocation, and Reinstatement
In some cases, a conviction may trigger a license suspension for the driver. Licenses can be suspended for major traffic offenses, such as driving under the influence (DUI), racing, hit and run, or leaving the scene of an accident. Drivers can also have their licenses suspended for accumulating 15 or more points for lesser offenses (e.g., speeding) in any consecutive 24-month period. DDS is responsible for recording suspensions on the drivers’ records and for notifying drivers of the suspension and revocation of their driving privileges when they have accumulated excessive points. In addition to driving violations, licenses can be suspended or revoked for failure to appear in court or pay fines; physical impairment; failure to pay child support; violations of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act; and, for minors, excessive absenteeism from school and purchasing or attempting to purchase alcohol. DDS receives notification from the Department of Human Services, schools, and insurance companies.
Upon completion of requirements set forth by law, suspended drivers may reinstate their licenses by mail or in person at one of the customer service centers located throughout Georgia. DDS is responsible for issuing limited driving permits to individuals with a suspended license, processing reinstatements, updating drivers’ records, and collecting license reinstatement and` permit fees.
DDS also receives conviction reports on Georgia drivers for citations issued in other states and includes the convictions in the driver records. State law stipulates that the convictions “shall have the same force and effect as though entered on the driver’s record in this state in the original instance.” DDS participates in the Nonresident
Law enforcement
issues a citation
to a Georgia
citizen
Court prepares
citations for
electronic bulk
submission to DDS.
FTAs & FTA
releases are
included.
Driver
History
Updated
GTA
Mainframe
Error file
waiting court
pickup in the
output folder
DDS
Applications
Server
Does
the batch meet
formatting
standards?
YES
NO
Does the
individual
record pass edit
checks?
YES
NO
(only invalid
records returned)
Law
Enforcement
Courts
Department of
Driver Services
Courts
adjudicate
cases and
collect fines, if
applicable
Is
the driver
convicted (paid
fine/plead guilty/
found
guilty)
YES
Citation is NOT
transmitted to DDSNO
Source: DDS Documents
DDS Secure File
Transfer Protocol
(SFTP)
Driver Records 5
Violator Compact (NRVC), which allows member states to report when an out-of-state driver fails to comply with a citation’s terms.
Activity Data
Georgia’s decentralized court system includes approximately 1,100 state, probate, juvenile, superior, magistrate, recorders, and municipal courts. In 2011, 743 of these courts reported 1.2 million convictions to DDS, as shown in Exhibit 3. Municipal, state, recorders, and probate courts reported most of the convictions (1.14 million) as these are the types of courts with jurisdiction over traffic offenses. Superior courts have jurisdiction over more serious traffic offenses and drug offenses, and some magistrate courts handle marijuana and underage alcohol offenses. In addition to the 1.2 million convictions reported by Georgia courts, DDS processed approximately 175,000 convictions for Georgia drivers from out-of-state courts and 30,000 from law enforcement for a total of 1.37 million convictions in 2011. The conviction data in Exhibit 3, and throughout the report, includes FTAs unless otherwise noted. (While FTAs are not technically convictions, they are reportable violations and included in DDS’s conviction reports).
Exhibit 3 Convictions Reported to DDS by Court Type Calendar Year 2011(1)
Most courts report convictions through GECPS. In 2011, approximately 1.14 million violations (83%) were reported through GECPS, and the Records Management Unit processed approximately 200,000 violations (14%). The remaining 38,000 violations (3%) were received through the Commercial Driver’s License Information System (CDLIS), a nationwide computer system that allows states to exchange out-of-state conviction information for commercial drivers. As shown in Exhibit 4, the most common types of offenses are: speeding, improper maneuvers, and equipment violations. DDS also recorded 378,638 license suspensions in 2011, with the most common reasons being FTA, DUI, and noncompliance with child support.
Total In
Georgia
Reporting
Convictions
Number
Reported Percent
Municipal(2)
386 356 548,569 39.9%
State 70 70 295,688 21.5%
Recorders 4 4 170,015 12.4%
Probate(3)
159 92 127,182 9.2%
Superior 159 137 17,694 1.3%
Magistrate 159 4 7,817 0.6%
Juvenile 159 78 2,604 0.2%
Federal District 4 2 440 0.0%
Other (Out of State/Law Enforcement) - - 204,935 14.9%
Total 1,100 743 1,374,944 100.0%
Sources: DDS Data and AOC's Court Directory
Type of Court
Courts Convictions
(1) Data is based on the date that the conviction was processed by DDS.
(2) Municipal courts were identified using information from DDS and the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC). We did not verify the existence of every municipal court.(3)
Probate courts generally only have jurisdiction over traffic offenses if there is no state court in the county.
Driver Records 6
Exhibit 4 Convictions and License Suspensions 2011(1)
Financial Information
In fiscal year 2011 DDS expended a total of $62 million. Most of the expenditures ($50 million) were related to license issuance. Approximately $3 million was expended by the Information Technology (IT) Division, which is responsible for maintaining the database of driver histories in addition to providing other agency support. The remaining $9 million was related to programs including motorcycle safety, regulatory compliance, and administrative services.
Exhibit 5 shows annual expenditures associated with conviction processing, which includes expenses from license issuance and IT. In fiscal year 2011, DDS expended an estimated $908,000 processing convictions and updating driver histories. The expenditures were split evenly between manual processing ($440,000) and electronic processing ($468,000). The elimination of the payment to courts for electronic convictions reduced costs by over $400,000 (46%) in fiscal year 2011. The expenditures for manually processing convictions were estimated by DDS based on the percentage of time the Records Management Unit staff spent on this task. Fiscal year 2011 expenditures for the Records Management Unit totaled $1.9 million.
13
%1
6%
10
%
5%
24
%
32
%
Source: DDS Reports and Driver Records Data
Convictions License Suspensions
Failure To Appear
47%
Child
Support
13%
Super
Speeder
9%
DUI
16%
Improper
Maneuvers
24%
Speeding
32%
Equipment
16%
Failure To
Appear
13%
DUI
5%Other
10%
Other
15%
(1) Convictions are for calendar year 2011; license suspensions are for fiscal year 2011.
Driver Records 7
Exhibit 5 Expenditures for Conviction Processing Fiscal Years 2009-2011
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Records Management Unit - Manual Processing(1)
Personal Services $365,519 $359,999 $349,347
Regular Operating 15,795 9,827 6,455
Computer Charges 1,055 713 -
Telecommunications 6,966 200 193
Contracts 120,388 110,181 83,864
Records Management Unit Total $509,723 $480,920 $439,859
GECPS - Electronic Processing
IT Programming-Related Costs (personnel)(2)
$36,086 $48,959 $227,752
Judicical Outreach 72,419 68,812 62,281
Conviction Reports(3)
392,264 416,231 -
Server Costs & Storage/Mainframe Time(4)
178,347 178,347 178,347
GECPS Total $679,116 $712,349 $468,380
Total Expenditures $1,188,839 $1,193,269 $908,239
(1) DDS estimated costs based on the percentage of the Records Management Unit's time spent on conviction
processing.(2) GECPS system upgrade w as completed in f iscal year 2011.(3) DDS w as required to pay courts $0.40 per electronic citation. Both the funding and statutory requirement w ere
eliminated effective July 1, 2010.(4) DDS estimated costs.
Sources: PeopleSoft and information provided by DDS
Driver Records 8
Findings and Recommendations
DDS should improve controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness of its driver records.
The quality of information contained in DDS’s driver records database is critical to successfully fulfilling its responsibility for maintaining the integrity of Georgia drivers’ records. Because the information is used by law enforcement and the courts in determining appropriate charges and sentences for traffic offenses, it is important that it be accurate and complete. In addition, DDS also uses this data to apply suspensions (when required) based on the violation or accumulation of points on the driver records and to collect super speeder fees. In order to perform these duties, the data must be accurate and complete or risk adversely impacting public safety, drivers, or revenue collection.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has established best practices for ensuring the quality of driver record data. Using their standards as criteria, we reviewed critical data elements and processes within DDS’ system. We found that DDS is taking some measures to ensure the integrity of its driver records. For example, DDS has verified 99% of social security numbers for licenses first issued since 2005 using the Social Security Number Online Verification tool.2 However, in order to ensure that the driver records are complete and accurate, DDS should consider implementing additional controls. Controls that should be in place are discussed below.
Goals and Performance Measures –NHTSA recommends that driver data be timely, accurate, complete, and consistent, and these attributes should be tracked using established quality control metrics. For example, one performance measures could be the percentage of driver records with no missing critical data elements. DDS has not established sufficient goals and performance measures to assess the timeliness, accuracy, completeness and consistency of its driver records. By developing such goals and measures, DDS can communicate the magnitude of an error necessary to compromise the database. For example, if a review finds 7,000 of 6.5 million records are missing a critical data element, DDS may deem it an issue that requires corrective action if it impacts 7,000 drivers. However, if it does not impact the drivers, the threshold may be higher.
Periodic Data Reviews – DDS has made efforts to improve data reliability through edit checks at the time the data is entered into the system. For example, the system will not process a conviction if the violation date is after the court disposition date. However, DDS lacks a process for regular, systematic data monitoring. Data errors are usually identified by drivers or the courts, and reviews are conducted on an ad-hoc basis. Regular, systematic data monitoring will allow DDS to identify data issues and further refine edit checks and court training as necessary.
2 The drivers without verified social security numbers were either not eligible for a social security number or had their verification denied but were given a grace period to resolve issues (e.g., name change) with the Social Security Administration.
Driver Records 9
Prevention and Detection of Unauthorized Changes – Currently, 550 of approximately 835 staff members have the ability to modify and inactivate license suspensions. However, DDS does not have policies in place governing which positions in the agency require access that allows changes to and deletions of records. Rather, the authority is conferred based on supervisory recommendations and approvals. Without sufficient access controls and regular monitoring, the database is vulnerable to unauthorized changes, such as personnel inactivating a conviction or license suspension from the driver records. DDS has indicated that a new project will automate the license reinstatement process, thereby reducing the potential for staff to inactivate a suspension without the requirements being met.
Although the system tracks changes to the database in the log files, DDS does not systematically review these log files. According to staff, they will investigate potential fraud on an ad-hoc, case-by case basis if a suspicious change is noticed. However, we found that other states take a more proactive and formalized approach to detecting unauthorized changes. For example, Florida conducts periodic reviews of employee searches and activities, in addition to requiring scanned documentation for all changes.
Absent controls and policies, such as those noted above, inaccurate records can exist in the database. While DDS receives information from the courts, it is responsible for monitoring the accuracy and completeness of the database and taking the steps necessary to address problems. If problems are identified during periodic reviews and determined to warrant corrective action based on the established goals and objectives, DDS may determine that additional edit checks are necessary, that additional training or education of the courts is required, or that records should be returned to the courts for correction.3 We identified the following inaccuracies in our review of the database:
Inaccurate addresses – This field is used to send correspondence, such as super speeder fee notifications and suspension notifications. Correspondence is returned to DDS as undeliverable when the address information is incorrect, and DDS does not take any further action to notify the driver. In addition, incorrect information in these fields impacts jury notifications now that jury pools are constructed from the drivers’ database.
o Approximately 9,500 super speeder fine notices were returned as undeliverable between January 2010 and December 2011. Of those, approximately 5,700 had not paid the $200 fee as of April 2012.4 As a result, over $1.1 million in super speeder fees was uncollected.
3 We identified problems with the current system of returning data files to the courts for correction. These issues are identified in a subsequent finding and should be addressed before DDS decides to broaden the criteria under which it returns records to the courts. 4 We were unable to determine how 3,800 of the 9,500 drivers for whom a notice was returned were made aware of the requirement to pay a $200 fee to DDS. It appears that at least a portion of these drivers became aware once their licenses were suspended and paid the fee and a license reinstatement fee.
Driver Records 10
In addition, DDS automatically suspended licenses for these 5,700 drivers because they did not pay the required fee within 120 days of when the notice was sent. DDS indicated that drivers could elect to have their licenses suspended rather than pay the $200 fee. However, in the cases described above, drivers may not be aware of the fee or the suspension.
o Of the 45,488 suspension notices sent to drivers due to point accumulations from 2001-2011, 4,781 (10.5%) were returned as undeliverable. As a result, these individuals may continue to drive, creating a public safety concern. Additionally, if stopped again, these drivers could face additional sanctions for driving on a suspended license.
There are various address verification tools available, including the United States Postal Service’s National Change of Address (NCOA) master file. DDS management indicated that they have been testing a verification tool but have not yet had positive results.
Unknown Two-Lane Road Indicator – This field is used to identify individuals as super speeders in order to send them a notification of the required fee payment. Being cited for traveling 75 mph or faster on a two-lane road or 85 mph on any road automatically qualifies the driver as a super speeder. From January 2010-December 2011, this field was listed as “unknown” for 52,746 (36%) of the 147,688 speeding convictions with an actual speed of 75-84 mph. As a result, DDS could not determine whether these individuals were subject to paying the super speeder fee. While it is likely that not all of these individuals would have been required to pay the fee, if 5% (2,637) were subject to the super speeder law this inaccuracy would have cost the state approximately $527,000 in forgone revenue. Courts should provide this information as part of the submitted record.
Missing Blood Alcohol Levels – This field is used to determine the length of the license suspension for first time DUI offenders under age 21. DDS noted that, if it is not reported to them by the courts, the minimum license suspension is applied.5 From January 2010-December 2011, approximately 1,000 (56%) of the 1,780 DUI convictions for first time offenders under 21 did not include a blood alcohol level.6 DDS indicated that courts may suppress the BAC; however, there is no way to know if a zero in this field is intentional on the court’s part or an error.
Missing and Inaccurate Case Numbers – DDS uses case numbers to identify duplicate convictions. However we found that from January 2010 to December 2011, 75,871 of 2.8 million (3%) convictions were missing case numbers. DDS also noted that case numbers are not reliable because courts are inconsistent in the way they report them. Duplicate convictions can
5 If the BAC is under .08, then the suspension should be for six months; if the BAC is .08 or over, then the suspension should be for one year. 6 Includes violations of O.C.G.A 40-6-391(K)(1) and O.C.G.A. 40-6-391(a)(1) where there was not a test refusal violation because these are instances in which a chemical test should have been administered.
Driver Records 11
result in drivers being assigned points in error, potentially leading to improper license suspensions. Excessive points may also lead to high insurance premiums for drivers.
RECOMMENDATION
DDS should establish goals and performance measures for data validity, accuracy, and completeness to ensure that the information maintained is reliable. While DDS has developed and improved some edit checks, it should consider conducting periodic reviews of the data system to detect errors. As problems are identified, DDS should determine the appropriate corrective action, such as making changes to its procedures and policies or changing its guidance to the courts. In addition, DDS should continue to explore the use of address verification tools to ensure that return notices can be redirected and drivers receive super speeder fee notices, suspension notices, and other correspondences. Lastly, DDS should establish formal policies governing access and the authority to change or delete information in the driver record.
Agency Response: DDS agrees with the statements regarding the importance of the completeness and accuracy of the data, the ability to implement additional edit checks, and the need for more specific goals and performance measures. DDS noted that it monitors the performance of the Data Entry and Validation teams through quarterly performance reviews and has established performance goals for ensuring that all updates of conviction data are added to the customers’ driving records. DDS plans to make periodic reviews of certain additional data elements to detect errors and to continue to investigate address verification rules. In 2010, DDS began mailing postcards to the driver’s license and identification card holders who were suspected of having a new address. In July of 2012 the DDS began requiring residents to provide a piece of mail that had been delivered to the resident so that the DDS could validate the address.
DDS also agrees with the recommendation to formalize a policy regarding security access and reduce the number of team members whose access includes modification and/or deletion of suspensions. DDS indicated that it continually reviews the access to driving record information allowed to employees and that only team members whose operational functions include modifications of citations currently have the authority to do so.
DDS also noted the following efforts that have been undertaken over the last five years to improve the validity, accuracy, and completeness of the driving records. In 2007, DDS upgraded GECPS so that courts could trigger a license suspension for failure to appear and respond to a traffic citation, courts could resolve an FTA suspension, and DDS could provide immediate feedback to courts on the data processed in each batch. DDS received a grant for a judicial liaison who worked with the courts on conviction reporting by making personal contact and explaining the benefits and functionality of electronic reporting. In 2008, the judicial liaison created a webpage for courts handling traffic citations that includes information about legislative changes, conviction reporting procedures, consequences of convictions for moving violations, and other matters pertaining to driver’s license law. In 2009, the DDS transitioned from a legacy microfilm system to document imaging for all documentary materials retained on a customer’s driver record, which has improved efficiency and made records accessible to all eligible team members. In 2012, DDS’s Legal Services Section published a new edition of the Traffic Court Reference Manuel and expanded training efforts for court personnel responsible for the adjudication and transmission of conviction data.
Driver Records 12
The General Assembly should consider revising state law to ensure compliance with federal requirements.
DDS’s process for handling DUI offenses is not in compliance with federal requirements because of inconsistencies between state law and federal regulations. Currently, when a driver is arrested for violation of O.C.G.A. 40-6-391 (DUI charge) and the result of the blood alcohol test is over the legal limit, law enforcement sends the report directly to DDS and DDS suspends the license. (This is referred to as an administrative license suspension or ALS.) DDS also suspends the license if law enforcement sends notification that the driver refused the blood alcohol test. If the charge does not result in a conviction by the court, then DDS terminates the suspension and deletes it from the driver’s record. This process is in accordance with state law. However, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) considers deleting the ALS suspensions to be “masking” and in violation of federal regulations. By failing to comply with federal regulations, Georgia risks losing federal highway funds. The penalty for noncompliance is up to 5% of funding for the first year and up to 10% for subsequent years. The federal reauthorization package that was signed into law in July 2012 requires this issue be resolved by 2015. At current funding levels, approximately $30 million could be at risk.7
RECOMMENDATION
The General Assembly should consider revising the statute regarding the deletion of the ALS suspension so that Georgia is in compliance with federal regulations. Agency Response: DDS defers to the legislature regarding statutory changes.
DDS should consider capturing additional information as recommended by best practices.
Complete driver histories are critical to ensuring that problem drivers are identified, that sanctions are enforced, and that law enforcement and courts have complete information when determining appropriate charges and sentences for traffic offenses. To identify the data elements that should be included as part of driver history, we reviewed statutory requirements, and recommendations issued by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). We identified three issues that DDS could address to improve the completeness of its records:
Convictions in Other States of Residency – When a new Georgia resident applies for a license, DDS checks the National Problem Driver Point System to determine if the applicant has a suspended license in another state, in which case DDS will not issue a Georgia license until the suspension is resolved. However, in its 2009 review of Georgia, NHTSA noted that “the DDS has not begun to record the history of convictions for critical offenses in prior States of licensing for non-commercial drivers, a step to improve the driver histories that does not require coordination with another Georgia agency. These omissions hamper the identification of problem drivers.”
7 $30 million is a conservative estimate based on fiscal year 2012 apportionments (inclusive of programmatic distribution to the apportioned programs under sections 111(d)(1) and (3) of Public Law 112-30, as amended). Other sources have indicated that as much as $100 million could be at risk.
Driver Records 13
Crash History – NHTSA recommends that driver records include information on all accidents, regardless of whether or not the driver was cited. This information could be used for analyses, such as the correlation between conviction history and crash involvement. State law also requires DDS to maintain records of all accident reports. However, DDS does not have complete accident information. For non-commercial drivers, involvement in an accident is indicated only by a checkbox on a citation. DDS only receives this information if the citation results in a conviction and the conviction is reported to DDS; otherwise, there is no indication of an accident on the driver record. DDS staff also indicated that they are unsure of the accuracy of the accident flag. It should be noted that the Georgia Department of Transportation now receives this accident information from law enforcement personnel, following a 2005 change to the statute.
Super Speeder – DDS has statutory authority for administering and collecting the super speeder fee, and as such, should have sufficient business practices in place for reconciling the amount owed and the amount paid. The driver records database lacks a clear way to track super speeders from the initial conviction to the driver notification to the receivable and to the amount paid. Currently, DDS runs a monthly report that shows the number of fee notices sent, the amount receivable based on the number of notices sent, the amount actually collected according to the trial balance, and the amount outstanding. Because drivers have 120 days to pay the fee after the notice is sent, the difference between the amount receivable and the amount paid in any given month or year is not an accurate measure of DDS’s collection rate. DDS’s reports show collection rates of 20%, 65%, and 73% in fiscal years 2010, 2011, and 2012, respectively.8
RECOMMENDATION
DDS should consider tracking critical violations in prior states for a more complete driver history and should seek legal authority to do so if deemed necessary. In addition, DDS should ensure that all accident reports are included in its records, as required by state law. DDS could consider integrating its driver data with the Georgia Department of Transportation’s to capture this information. If DDS determines that this is not feasible or too costly, then DDS should seek statutory changes to eliminate the requirement to maintain records of all accident reports. Lastly, DDS should update its driver records database to better track super speeder convictions, so that super speeder violations are linked with notifications, an amount receivable, and a payment.
Agency Response: DDS agrees with the audit team’s recommendation that improvements can be made to tracking super-speeder suspensions and has already incorporated improvements in their strategic goal of improving the reinstatement functionality in 2013. However, DDS does not find the recommendation with regard to tracking critical violations in prior states to be achievable and believes that the cost of implementing the recommendation would outweigh the expected benefits. DDS noted that there is currently no mechanism for the 50 states to exchange a non-commercial
8 The super speeder fee became effective in January 2010, so fiscal year 2010 only includes six months of collection. Since the drivers have 120 days to pay the fee, revenue may not have been collected until fiscal year 2011.
Driver Records 14
driver’s history among the state jurisdictions so that DDS could import a new Georgia resident’s driving record from the resident’s prior state.
DDS should improve its monitoring to ensure that all courts are reporting convictions required by state law.
DDS is responsible for maintaining data on convictions, points assessed, and license suspensions. In order to carry out this responsibility, DDS is reliant on over 750 courts to report required convictions. DDS produces a monthly report that shows the number of convictions submitted by each court. However, we found indication that DDS is not receiving all the convictions that should be reported.
We identified 301 courts that did not report a conviction to DDS in calendar year 2011 and surveyed these courts to determine if they had jurisdiction over reportable offenses, and, if so, if they had any convictions in 2011. (See Appendix B for a list of reportable offenses.) Of the 99 courts that responded to the survey, 58 indicated that they had jurisdiction, and 28 indicated that they had convictions for traffic violations, drug offenses, and/or underage alcohol offenses.9 As shown in Exhibit 6, many of the courts indicated they had convictions for violations that could entail a mandatory license suspension (underage alcohol and drug violations and many of the major traffic offenses). Of the 28 courts, 23 indicated that they had not received any guidance from DDS regarding conviction reporting. We conducted follow-up interviews with the courts not reporting convictions and found that many of the court personnel were unaware of the requirements or confused about which offenses are reportable, and they lacked training. In addition, some courts may be encountering technical problems in transmitting convictions. Ten of the 28 courts indicated that they thought they had submitted the convictions, but the audit team did not find the convictions in the driver records data, and the convictions did not appear in DDS’s monthly reports.
We also found indication that those courts that are sending conviction reports to DDS are failing to submit all reportable violations, including when there is a failure to appear (FTA) by the driver. When a driver does not respond to a citation, either by paying the fine or reporting to court, the court is supposed to notify DDS of the FTA. DDS is supposed to suspend the license if the citation is not resolved within 28 days. If the driver resolves the issue with the court, then the court sends an FTA release to DDS. In 2011, DDS received 14,313 FTA releases for which there was no suspension in the driver record. DDS indicated that the reasons the suspensions may not have been found was that the court did not send the original FTA notice, DDS did not post the FTA to the driver record (possibly due to an unresolved error), or the FTA was assigned to the wrong driver.
9 Forty-three courts actually indicated on the survey form that they had convictions for these types of offenses. We conducted phone interviews and determined that 15 of the courts only had convictions that were not required to be reported to DDS because it fell under one of the reporting exceptions or they had completed the survey incorrectly.
Driver Records 15
Exhibit 6 Survey of Courts Not Reporting Convictions to DDS Calendar Year 2011
Number of Courts1
Courts Without Reportable Convictions 71
Courts With Reportable Convictions: 28
Minor Traffic Offenses (e.g. speeding) 19
Major Traffic Offenses (e.g. DUI) 9
Drug Offenses 18
Underage Alcohol Offenses 13
1Of the 301 courts surveyed, 99 responded.
Sources: Court survey responses and phone interviews (audit team did not obtain court data)
Incomplete conviction data can potentially impact public safety and revenue. If courts fail to submit a conviction for an offense resulting in license suspension, then DDS cannot enter the suspension on the driver record, which is relied on by law enforcement and courts. Also, DDS cannot assign points for minor traffic convictions that are not reported, which could affect suspensions based on point accumulation. Incomplete conviction data also affects state revenue, as DDS cannot collect super speeder fees if convictions are not reported. Because we did not reconcile DDS’s conviction data to each court’s conviction data, the extent to which unreported convictions is impacting license suspension or revenue was not determined.
RECOMMENDATION
DDS should ensure that its list of courts with jurisdiction over reportable offenses is complete and accurate and should provide clear guidance to those courts regarding how convictions should be reported. DDS should monitor monthly conviction reports to identify which courts did not submit any convictions and follow-up with these courts to confirm they did not have reportable convictions. As an alternative, DDS could request positive confirmation statements from courts that did not report any convictions. Lastly, DDS should consider conducting routine periodic reviews to reconcile a sample of convictions in its records to the courts’ conviction data. These reviews could focus on courts that appear more problematic or on convictions for more serious offenses. For example, Florida’s Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles compares DUI conviction data to the courts’ data to identify any DUI convictions that had not been posted to the driver record.
Agency Response: DDS agrees in part with the recommendation for improved monitoring but also notes that it has already taken additional measures. DDS noted that in 2010 it “launched a new page on [its] website with conviction reporting data for every court in the State of Georgia. These figures are monitored monthly and employees from the Customer Service, Licensing and Records Division follow up with courts when their reporting figures are missing for more than ninety (90) days or if their numbers seem unusually low.” DDS also noted plans to “initiate periodic data
Driver Records 16
reviews relating to those data elements that are reported by the courts, but are in addition to the minimum required elements, for inclusion on the customer’s driving record. This review would be in addition to the multiple edit checks already in place for the required elements, and [DDS] will periodically report the findings of these reviews to the Courts.”
DDS should encourage all courts to report convictions through GECPS and should consider expanding electronic processing options for out-of-state convictions.
State law requires courts to report convictions using DDS’s electronic reporting method. Electronic reporting is more cost-effective and timely. Courts can register online to use DDS’s Georgia Electronic Conviction Processing System (GECPS) but must obtain their own front-end software to submit data. Since GECPS was implemented in 2004, DDS has been generally successful in compelling courts to adopt the system. Approximately 1.14 million of the 1.37 million violations processed in 2011 (83%) were reported through GECPS. When excluding out-of-state convictions and violations reported to DDS directly by law enforcement, GECPS accounted for approximately 97% of reported offenses.
Although most violations are reported through GECPS, we identified 83 courts that did not use GECPS at all in 2011. While many of these courts only reported a few convictions, 17 of the 83 reported over 100 convictions (ranging up to 6,000) during the year. Many of the smaller courts may not report electronically because they are reluctant to hire a vendor to make their systems compatible with GECPS.
Courts that are transmitting convictions through GECPS may not be utilizing it to its full capacity. DDS indicated that some courts are unaware of which violations are reportable through GECPS and that it is attempting to address this issue through court training. For example, in 2011, Failure to Appear (FTAs) violations accounted for 12,533 of the 29,653 (42%) Georgia violations reported manually, although these offenses can be reported electronically.
Although only a small portion of violations are reported by paper, they are significantly more time-consuming and costly to process compared to GECPS. In 2011, GECPS processed approximately 1.14 million violations at an estimated cost of $468,000. By comparison, the Records Management Unit manually processed approximately 200,000 violations at an estimated cost of $440,000.10 Most of the violations that are manually processed are out-of-state convictions for non-commercial drivers because currently there is no national database that allows states to exchange this information electronically. However, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has indicated that it is beginning a project that will allow states to exchange conviction information for non-commercial drivers; the database is scheduled to be fully implemented in three years. This project may offer an opportunity for DDS to begin electronically processing out-of-state convictions.
10 The number of violations processed is from calendar year 2011 data. The estimated cost is based on fiscal year 2011 expenditures.
Driver Records 17
RECOMMENDATION
DDS should encourage all courts to utilize GECPS in order to comply with state law. DDS should focus efforts on those courts not using GECPS with a relatively high volume of convictions. DDS should also continue to train court personnel on the types of information that are reportable through GECPS. To achieve cost-savings, DDS should consider receiving and processing out-of-state convictions electronically when the nation-wide system becomes fully implemented.
Agency Response: DDS indicated that it will continue to encourage all courts to report through GECPS. DDS noted that the grant-funded judicial liaison worked with the courts on conviction reporting through GECPS. The liaison made personal contact with the state’s traffic courts and explained the benefits and functionality of electronic conviction reporting.
DDS should better monitor courts to ensure that they report convictions in a timely manner.
Georgia courts are not reporting convictions to DDS in a timely manner. State law requires courts to report convictions to DDS within 10 days of the date of conviction. While DDS does not have any enforcement authority over the courts, DDS could monitor timeliness to help ensure its records are up-to-date. Currently, DDS does not track the number of days it takes courts to report convictions to DDS. It should be noted that prior to 2010, as incentive, the state paid courts $0.40 for each conviction report if it was received within 10 days via GECPS. The payments were eliminated in fiscal year 2011.11
We found that the median number of days from court disposition to the date received by DDS in calendar year 2011 was five, but the average number of days was 28. As shown in Exhibit 7, 305,029 of the 1 million convictions processed (30%) were not reported within 10 days of conviction. Of the 305,029 late convictions, 41,867 (14%) were for violations resulting in mandatory license suspensions.
Exhibit 7 also shows the time lag between conviction and reporting to DDS for the 305,029 convictions exceeding the 10-day requirement. Most of these convictions (80%) are reported within two months. However, there were 11,191 convictions that took the courts over one year to report, and over 2,000 of these convictions were for violations entailing license suspensions. (FTAs are not included in Exhibit 7 because these violations are not legally defined as convictions.)
11 In July 2010, the law was changed to specify that the $0.40 payment would be made to courts only if funding was provided to DDS.11 No funding was provided in fiscal year 2011.
Driver Records 18
Exhibit 7 Timeliness of Conviction Reporting by Georgia Courts Calendar Year 2011
Most Georgia courts (715 of 737) had at least one conviction that exceeded the 10-day requirement, and over half of the courts (378 of 737) had a median exceeding 10 days for reporting convictions. Some courts had a significant number and/or percentage of convictions that were very delinquent. Examples of courts with convictions reported over one year after the disposition date are shown in Exhibit 8.
Exhibit 8 Examples of Courts with Delayed Reporting Calendar Year 2011
Court Name
Convictions Received Over One Year from
Disposition Date
Total Convictions Processed
Percent Over One
Year
Court A 3,898 7,294 53%
Court B 376 1,316 29%
Court C 224 376 60%
Court D 167 312 73%
Court E 150 205 53%
Court F 125 706 18%
13%
87%
11%
89%
16%
84%
19%
81%
21%
79%
200,000
100,000
150,000
50,000
11-30
Days
31-60
Days
61-180
Days
180-365
Days
Over 1
Year
175,888
68,194
39,070
10,686 11,191
Convictions
Requiring
Mandatory
Suspensions
Convictions
Not Requiring
Suspensions
Time Between Disposition Date and the Date Received by DDS
All Convictions
70%
30%
Convictions Exceeding the 10 Day Reporting Requirement
Reported
within 10
Days of
Conviction
712,945
(70%)
Convictions
Exceeding 10
Days
305,029
(30%)
Source: DDS Driver Records
Driver Records 19
In addition to convictions, courts are not reporting failure to appear (FTA) violations in a timely manner. While FTAs are not subject to the 10-day statutory requirement, it is still important that FTAs are reported in a timely manner because DDS is required by state law to suspend the driver’s license. In 2011, the average and median number of days from court disposition date to received date was 109 and 64, respectively. Of the 153,829 FTAs processed, 6,406 were not reported within a year.
Because of the delayed reporting by the courts, DDS cannot ensure that it is meeting federal regulations pertaining to commercial drivers. Federal regulations require DDS to notify the state of licensure if a commercial driver receives a conviction in Georgia.12 The notification must be sent within 10 days of the conviction. In 2011, DDS did not report 4,123 of 8,969 commercial convictions (46%) within 10 days of conviction. As previously noted, failure to comply with federal regulations can result in the loss of federal highway funds.
RECOMMENDATION
While it is the courts’ responsibility to report convictions within 10 days of conviction, DDS should improve monitoring to help ensure that driver records are up-to-date and that Georgia is in compliance with federal regulations for commercial drivers. DDS should consider establishing goals and performance measures for timeliness. For example, NHTSA recommends tracking the median or average number of days from the date of adverse action to the date the adverse action is entered into the database. DDS should also run regular reports to show the number and percent of convictions by court that exceed the 10-day requirement. DDS could use these reports to identify courts that are delinquent and follow-up with additional training.
Agency Response: DDS agrees with the conclusion that some convictions are reported by the courts outside of the timeframe established in O.C.G.A 40-5-53. DDS noted that it has established performance goals for ensuring that all updates of conviction data are added to the customers driving records. DDS also noted that “although the DDS has little ability to ensure timely conviction reporting, we work extensively with courts that are not reporting as required by O.C.G.A 40-5-53. Legal and technical personnel engage with court personnel, liaise with courts’ case management system providers, provide in-person coaching in courts, and communicate regularly with court personnel to ensure that problems do not recur. As recommended in the report… the DDS anticipates expanding the data reported to include the average number of days to report conviction by each court and both the number and percentage of the citations that were reported within the timeframe contemplated in O.C.G.A 40-5-53.”
12 This reporting requirement applies if it is a commercial offense or an offense committed in a commercial vehicle.
Driver Records 20
DDS generally processes convictions in a timely manner if no errors are detected. However, DDS needs to improve its procedures for resolving errors to ensure that these convictions are also posted to the driver records in a timely manner.
Once conviction reports are received from the courts, DDS processes and posts the convictions to the drivers’ records in a timely manner if there are no errors. Convictions reported through GECPS are processed nightly. The average processing time for violations handled manually was 3.5 days in calendar year 2011. However, DDS received 58,650 conviction reports, FTAs, and FTA releases with errors that needed correction in 2011, and 53,449 (91%) of these reports remained outstanding as of August 2012. As shown in Exhibit 9, the most common types of errors were suspension not found for an FTA release (24%), driver not found (24%), and invalid legal code (15%).
Courts transmit files containing multiple records to DDS, and the files undergo two rounds of edit checks. First, the file batch must meet formatting and layout standards or the entire batch will be returned to the court in the output folder on the server. Currently, DDS does not track errors returned because of batch formatting problems. As a result, there are an unknown number of records returned to the courts for which DDS does not know if corrected batches were ever resubmitted. File batches with no initial errors are loaded into GECPS where edit checks are run on individual records. Any invalid record is returned to the output folder and an error notification email is sent to the court. Convictions are not posted on the driver record until the court resolves the error and resubmits the record to DDS. Exhibit 9 Error Reasons for Reports Returned to Courts Calendar Year 2011
Suspension Not
Found for FTA
Release
14,313
(24%)
Includes: missing
fields, invalid
codes, incorrect
dates, and issues
with speed limits
and actual speed
Driver Not
Found
14,187
(24%)
(1) There were 58,650 reports with errors; 544 of these reports had multiple errors. When
counting each error individually, there were 59,263 total errors.
Source: DDS Data
Other Errors
17,272
(29%)
Invalid
Legal
Code
8,760
(15%)
Failed to Locate
Violation
Invalid Violation
County Code
2,842
(5%)
1,889 (3%)
Driver Records 21
DDS received 58,650 records in 2011 with errors that needed to be resolved. While DDS notified the courts soon after the records were received, most of the courts failed to resolve the errors and resubmit the records to DDS. As of August 2012, 53,449 of the 58,650 records (91%) remained outstanding. On average, 404 days had passed since DDS had returned the error to the court.13 The outstanding records include:14
Convictions – There are 32,604 convictions that have not been posted to the driver record because of unresolved errors. Approximately 3,400 of these convictions are for violations that could entail a license suspension.
FTAs – There are 5,258 outstanding FTA notices that have not been posted to the driver record. FTAs should result in license suspension if they are not resolved within 28 days of the date that DDS is notified.
FTA Releases – The outstanding records also include 13,892 FTA releases, which notify DDS that the FTA has been resolved so driving privileges can be reinstated. Most of the FTA releases (10,657) were in error because the suspension could not be found on the driver record, presumably because it was never received or not processed correctly. The other 3,235 FTA releases in error could create problems for drivers seeking to have their licenses reinstated. DDS indicated that it has recently changed its procedures so that if an FTA release is received and no suspension is on record, it is still processed in case the initial FTA is received later. However, this does not resolve the problem that DDS is receiving FTA releases that do not match up with an initial FTA.
Additionally, DDS flagged 57,109 conviction reports as errors because the violation was not reportable (29,087) or because the record was already on file (28,022). Nearly all of the records with these types of errors in calendar year 2011 were indicated as outstanding as of August 2012. While these records should be returned to the courts as an opportunity to train them on the correct procedures for submitting conviction reports, the records do not need to be flagged as errors in the data system. Doing so inflates the number of error reports and clouds the issue of what types of errors need to be addressed to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the database. DDS indicated that as of October 2012, their system has been updated to automatically flag these errors as resolved.
While the primary problem lies with the courts not resolving errors, DDS should monitor the process and work with courts to ensure that its driver records are complete and up-to-date. DDS does not track errors returned to courts because of batch formatting problems. DDS does track and run reports on errors with individual records but lacks written procedures for how to manage these convictions. DDS notifies the court when an error is detected but does not send automated follow-up messages with specific information on outstanding errors.
13 6,403 of 53,449 (12%) records were not included because of incomplete date information 14 1,695 of the 53,449 (3%) were not categorized as convictions, FTAs, or FTA release because of incomplete data
Driver Records 22
RECOMMENDATION
To improve the error resolution process and ensure all records are accounted for, DDS should begin tracking batches returned to courts because of formatting errors. Regarding errors in individual records, DDS should ensure that errors that do not need to be returned (duplicate convictions and convictions that should not have been reported) are automatically flagged as resolved to allow DDS to focus on the ones that actually need correction. DDS should also consider sending automated follow-up notifications to the courts detailing the outstanding errors at certain time intervals. DDS should specifically focus on those convictions resulting in mandatory suspensions and follow-up with the courts regarding these reports. Lastly, DDS should identify courts with a disproportionate number of errors and provide additional guidance to reduce the reoccurrence of errors.
Agency Response: DDS noted that it “agrees with the recommendation that records returned to the courts with errors could be tracked more consistently and has already implemented a number of improvements. Recent changes have improved the DDS’s ability to track errors reported back to the courts and will end the inclusion of non-reportable citations on each court’s error counts.” DDS also indicated that it will explore the potential for creating additional tracking mechanisms and pursuing the resolution of errors. Furthermore, DDS indicated that it will enhance its work with the courts, as feasible, particularly those with disproportional errors, to improve their performance and error correction.
Driver Records 23
Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives
This report examines driver records maintained by the Department of Driver Services Driver Records. Specifically, our audit set out to determine the following:
1. To what extent are the driver records maintained by DDS complete and accurate?
2. Is DDS adequately ensuring that courts are reporting convictions and that driver records are updated accordingly?
Scope
This audit generally covered activity related to the Department of Driver Services’ Driver Records that occurred in calendar years 2010 and 2011, with consideration of earlier or later periods when relevant. Information used in this report was obtained by: reviewing relevant laws, rules, and regulations, interviewing agency officials and staff from the Department, conducting a survey of courts that had not reported convictions to DDS in calendar year 2011, and analyzing DDS’s driver records data. DDS transmitted a copy of all the data files that compose its driver records system. The reliability of the data was analyzed, as described in the methodology section. Given the size of the database (approximately 150 tables), we focused only on critical data elements.
Government auditing standards require that we also report the scope of our work on internal control that is significant within the context of the audit objectives. All of our objectives and, therefore, our findings address aspects of the control structure around drivers’ records. Specific information related to the scope of our internal control work is described by objective in the methodology section below.
Methodology
To determine the extent to which driver records maintained by DDS are complete and accurate, we reviewed critical data elements and processes within DDS’s system. We used best practices established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) as the primary criteria. We focused on critical driver data elements such as social security numbers and driver addresses. For example, we reviewed the data to identify any invalid or unverified social security numbers. We also focused on conviction and suspension data fields since law enforcement and courts may rely on this information. We reviewed the data to identify duplicate convictions and convictions with missing or invalid data elements, including case numbers, blood alcohol content for DUIs, and two-lane road indicators when applicable. We used NHTSA’s best practice guidelines, as well as federal and state law, to identify data components that should be tracked in the driver records system that DDS was not capturing properly.
We assessed the controls over the data by interviewing agency staff and reviewing policies and procedures. Specifically, we reviewed DDS’s Programming Standards, Enterprise Systems RACF Procedures, Software Development Life Cycle, Web and Client/Server Development and Programming Standards, and Enterprise Information Security Policies. We interviewed staff from agencies in other states to identify their data controls to use as benchmarks.
Driver Records 24
To determine the extent to which DDS is adequately ensuring that courts are reporting convictions and that driver records are updated accordingly, we first analyzed the driver records data and identified 301 Georgia courts with no reported convictions in calendar year 2011. We then surveyed these courts to determine if they had any reportable convictions. Of the 99 courts that responded to the survey, 43 indicated that they had the types of convictions that are reportable (e.g., traffic, drug offenses, and underage alcohol offenses). We conducted phone interviews with these courts to determine if the convictions fell under one of the reporting exceptions (e.g., first offender status for drug convictions). We also used the phone interviews to identify the reasons that the courts were not reporting convictions.
We analyzed the driver records data to identify convictions that were not reported through the Georgia Electronic Conviction Processing System (GECPS) as required by state law. In addition, we analyzed the data to determine if courts were reporting convictions in a timely manner. We calculated the average and median number of days between disposition date and date received by DDS. For those convictions exceeding the ten day reporting requirement in state law, we determined the percentage of convictions that were for violations resulting in mandatory license suspensions. We also identified courts with a significant number and/or percentage of convictions that were reported over one year after the disposition date. We interviewed DDS staff regarding how they monitor court reporting and reviewed program documents.
We also reviewed how DDS processes convictions once they are received from the courts. We calculated the average number of days it took DDS to post the conviction to driver records after the conviction was received from the courts. Since the driver record data does not include convictions received from the courts with unresolved errors, DDS provided a separate data set with records received from courts with errors in calendar year 2011 (these records include convictions, failure to appear, and failure to appear releases). We identified the number of records that DDS returned to the courts due to errors in calendar year 2011 and the type of errors. We also determined the number of errors that were unresolved and the number of days that had passed since DDS had notified the court of the error.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Driver Records 25
Appendix B: List of Convictions Reportable to DDS
(Continued on next page)
Type of
Offense
Georgia Legal
CodeViolation Description
Only Reportable
for Commercial
Vehicles
Mandatory
Suspension(1)
3-3-23A2A Purchasing alcohol under 21 X
3-3-23A2B Attempting to purchase alcohol X
3-3-23A2CPossession of alcohol by a minor (report only if possession was
by a driver operating a motor vehicle) X
3-3-23A3 Misrepresenting age to purchase alcohol X
3-3-23A5 Using false ID to purchase alcohol X
16-8-2 Theft by taking
16-8-3 Theft by deception
16-8-4 Theft by conversion
16-8-5 Theft of services
16-8-6 Theft of lost or misplaced property
16-8-7 Theft by receiving stolen property
16-8-8 Theft by receiving property stolen in other state
16-8-9 Theft by bringing stolen property into state
16-10-20 False statements X
16-13-2 Possession of marijuana, less than an ounce X
16-13-2B Possession of marijuana, less than an ounce X
16-13-30A Illegal possession of controlled substance X
16-13-30B Illegal possession of controlled substance X
16-13-30.1 Possession of non-controlled substance X
16-13-30.2 Possession of imitation controlled substance X
16-13-30.3B1 Possession of certain amounts of ephedrine X
16-13-30.3B1.1 Restrictions on commercial sales of ephedrine X
16-13-30.3D Altering ephedrine products X
16-13-30.4 Ephedrine storage and licensing requirements X
16-13-30.4G2 Ephedrine sales for purposes of manufacturing X
16-13-30.5 Possessing substance to manufacture controlled substance X
16-13-31 Trafficking in controlled substance X
16-13-31.1 Ecstasy Trafficking X
16-13-32 Transactions of drug related objects to use X
16-13-32.1 Transactions of drug related objects to grow X
16-13-32.2 Possession of drug related object X
16-13-32.3 Use of communication facility to commit felony X
16-13-32.4 Drug-free school zone X
16-13-32.5 Drug-free recreation/housing project zone X
16-13-32.6 Drug-free commercial zone X
16-13-33 Conspiracy to possess controlled substance X
16-13-42 Unlawfully dispensing prescriptions X
16-13-43 Unlawfully distributing prescriptions X
16-13-72Illegal possession of dangerous drugs -
report only if a juvenile under 16 years of age X
32-6-20 Exceed/violate size, weight, pass.cargo lim X
32-6-22 Exceed/violate height limit of vehicle/truck X
32-6-23 Exceed/violate width limit of vehicle/truck X
32-6-24 Exceed/violate size limit of vehicle/truck X
32-6-28 Violate excess size/weight permit X
32-6-30 Failure to weigh or stop at weigh station X X
Underage
Alcohol
Theft & False
Statements(1)
Drug Offenses
Vehicle Size
and Load
(1) Does not reflect treatment of a plea of nolo contendere.
(2) Theft by offenses should only be reported if the item taken was a vehicle engaged in commercial transportation of cargo or any appurtenance
thereto, or the cargo being transported therein or thereon.
Driver Records 26
(Continued on next page)
Type of
Offense
Georgia Legal
CodeViolation Description
Only Reportable
for Commercial
Vehicles
Mandatory
Suspension
40-2-5 Acquiring license plate to conceal vehicle identity X
40-2-6 Missing/defaced/obscured license plate X
40-2-8 Expired or no license plate or decal X
40-2-20 Expired or no license plate or decal X
40-2-31 License plate specifications X
40-2-38 Expired or no registration or title X
40-2-41 Obscured or missing license plate X
40-2-44 Expired or no license plate or decal X
40-2-88 Expired or no registration or title X
40-2-90 Expired or no license plates or decal X
40-2-114 Unlawful operation - motor truck X
40-3-90 Altered/counterfeit certificate of title X
40-4-21 Falsification of vin or registration plate X
40-4-22 Possession of vehicle with altered vin X
40-5-20 Expired or no license on person
40-5-20A Driving without a license - failure to obtain in 30 days
40-5-20B Steering/controlling a towed vehicle without a license
40-5-20C Possession of multiple drivers licenses
40-5-20F Felony driving without a license
40-5-29 Failure to have license on person X
40-5-29A Failure to have license on person X
40-5-30 Violating restriction of driver license
40-5-32 Expired license X
40-5-32A Expired or no drivers license X
40-5-58 Habitual violator - driving while license revoked X
40-5-58CHabitual violator misdemeanor - driving while license revoked but
after 5 year period
40-5-58EViolate limited license conditions - violating restrictions of a HV
probationary license X
40-5-64Violate limited license conditions- violating restrictions of a
limited permit X
40-5-65Operating motor vehicle with other license while
suspended/revoked X
40-5-120 Improper use - driver license X
40-5-121 Driving while license withdrawn X
40-5-121F Driving while license withdrawn - felony X
40-5-125 False report/application for driver license X
40-5-142.22E Violation involving fatal accident
40-5-143 Possess multiple driver licenses X
40-5-146A1 Driving CMV without CDL X
40-5-146A2 Driving CMV without CDL on person X
40-5-146B1 Driving without proper CDL X
40-5-146B2 Violating out of service order X
40-5-149 Expired or no drivers license X
40-5-149B Failure to report name or address change X
40-5-150D Improper class/endorsement X
40-5-150I2 Administrative action - security risk
40-5-151E Vehicle used in felony controlled substance X
40-5-151G3 Violating out of service order - hazmat X
40-5-151F Driving CMV without obtaining CDL
40-5-151J1 Imminent Hazard
40-5-152 Commercial driving with measurable BAC X
License
Plates, Titles,
and
Registration
Drivers
Licenses
Commercial
Drivers
Licenses
Driver Records 27
(Continued on next page)
Type of
Offense
Georgia Legal
CodeViolation Description
Only Reportable
for Commercial
Vehicles
Mandatory
Suspension
40-6-10 Failure to maintain insurance X
40-6-10ANo proof of insurance - do not report if proof of insurance at the
time of the traffic stop is presented to the court X
40-6-10B Failure to maintain insurance X
40-6-10C Show/use improperly - insurance certificate X
40-6-11 No proof of insurance - motorcycle
40-6-20 Failure to obey signs or control devises
40-6-21 Failure to obey traffic signal or light
40-6-23 Failure to obey traffic signal or light
40-6-24 Lane direction violation
40-6-26A Tampering with traffic signs or signals
40-6-26B Operate vehicle where prohibited
40-6-40 Obstructing traffic/fty ROW
40-6-40A Driving wrong side of undivided street
40-6-40B Obstructing flow of traffic
40-6-40C Lane violation
40-6-40D Obstructing/impeding traffic
40-6-41 Wrong side of road
40-6-42 Improper passing
40-6-43 Improper passing on right
40-6-43A Improper passing on right
40-6-43B Improper passing on right
40-6-44 Passing with insufficient clearance
40-6-45A1 Improper passing on hill/curve - suspension if driver under 21
40-6-45A2Improper passing in no passing zone - improper passing in
intersection or RR grade
40-6-45A3Improper passing in no passing zone - improper passing near
bridge or tunnel
40-6-46 Improper passing in no passing zone
40-6-46A Improper passing in no passing zone
40-6-46B Improper passing in no passing zone
40-6-47 Wrong way on one-way street
40-6-48 Improper/erratic lane change
40-6-49 Following too closely
40-6-49A Following too closely
40-6-49B Following too closely
40-6-49C Following too closely in convoy
40-6-50 Failure to keep in proper lane
40-6-50B Failure to keep in proper lane
40-6-51 Failure to obey traffic sign
40-6-52 Failure to keep in proper lane - trucks using wrong lane
40-6-52B Driving in left lane 3+ lanes (big trucks)
40-6-52C Driving in left lane of 2 lanes (big trucks)
40-6-52D Failure to keep in proper lane
40-6-53 Failure keep in proper lane - bus or motor coach
40-6-54 Improper lane usage
40-6-55 Failure to yield to bicycle
40-6-56 Failure to maintain safe distance from bicycle
40-6-70 Failure to yield to right of way to vehicle
40-6-71 Failure to yield right of way, turning
40-6-72 Failure to obey stop sign
40-6-72B Failure to obey stop sign
40-6-72C Failure to obey yield sign
40-6-73 Failure to yield to right of way to vehicle
40-6-74 Failure to yield to right of way to emergency vehicle
40-6-74A Failure to yield to right of way to emergency vehicle
40-6-74B Unsafe operation of emergency vehicle
40-6-75 Failure to obey construction markers
40-6-76 Failure to yield to funeral procession
Traffic Signs,
Signals &
Markings
Right of Way
Driving on
right side of
the roadway,
overtaking,
passing, and
following to
closely
Insurance
Driver Records 28
(Continued on next page)
Type of
Offense
Georgia Legal
Code Violation Description
Only Reportable
for Commercial
Vehicles
Mandatory
Suspension
40-6-91A Failure to yield right of way at crosswalk
40-6-91D Failure to yield right of way to pedestrian - passing a vehicle
stopped for a pedestrian
40-6-93Failure to yield right of way to pedestrian - failure to exercise due
care with pedestrians
40-6-94Failure to yield right of way to pedestrian - failure to yield right of
way to a blind pedestrian
40-6-98 Failure to obey safety zone
40-6-120 Improper turn
40-6-120A1 Improper right turn
40-6-120A2 Improper left turn
40-6-120B Improper turn
40-6-121 Making Improper U turn
40-6-122 Improper starting X
40-6-123 Failure to signal lane change or turn
40-6-123A Improper/erratic lane change
40-6-123B Giving wrong signal
40-6-123C Improper stopping
40-6-123D Improper signal
40-6-124 Failure to signal/improper signal
40-6-125 Improper use of hand signal
40-6-126 Center lane violation
40-6-140 Failure to obey RR crossing restrictions
40-6-140A Failure to obey RR grade crossing restrictions
40-6-140B Failure to obey RR crossing restrictions - driving around or over
RR barrier
40-6-140C Failure to slow for RR grade crossing
40-6-140D Driving over RR crossing when train approaching
40-6-140E Driving over RR crossing without sufficient space
40-6-140F Driving over RR crossing without sufficient clearance
40-6-141 Failure to obey RR gates/signs/signals
40-6-142 Failure to stop at railroad grade crossing
40-6-142A Disregarding signs or control device/rr
40-6-143 Moving heavy equipment at RR grade crossing
40-6-144 Emerging from ally, driveway, or building
40-6-160 School bus speeding X
40-6-161 Operating school bus wihtout using headlights X
40-6-162 Failure to use visual signals, by school bus X
40-6-163Passing school bus - loading/unloading -
suspension if driver under 21
40-6-164 Failure of school bus to yield right of way X
40-6-165 Failure of school bus to yield right of way X
40-6-180 Too fast for conditions/prima facie speed
40-6-181 Speeding (15 mph or more above speed limit if non-commercial)
- suspension if 24 mph or more over limit and driver under 21
40-6-184 Speed less than minimum
40-6-186 Racing X
40-6-188Construction site speed violation (15 mph or more above speed
limit if non-commercial)
- suspension if 24 mph or more over limit and driver under 21
Pedestrians
Turning,
Starting, and
Signaling
Railroad
Crossings
School Buses
Speeding
Driver Records 29
(Continued on next page)
Type of
Offense
Georgia Legal
CodeViolation Description
Only Reportable
for Commercial
Vehicles
Mandatory
Suspension
40-6-201 Parking violation X
40-6-203 Illegal stop/stand/park where prohibited X
40-6-205 Obstructing intersection
40-6-226 Violation of handicap parking X
40-6-270 Hit and run - failure to stop and render aid X
40-6-271 Striking unattended vehicle
40-6-272 Fail to report striking fixed object
40-6-273 Failure to report accident
40-6-275 Failure to remove accident vehicle X
40-6-311 Unsafe operation of motorcycle
40-6-312 Unsafe operation of motorcycle - motorcycle lane violation
40-6-312AUnsafe operation of motorcycle - another vehicle depriving a
motorcycle of a full lane
40-6-312BUnsafe operation of motorcycle - motorcycle passing another
vehicle in the same lane
40-6-312CUnsafe operation of motorcycle - motorcycle driving between
lanes
40-6-312DUnsafe operation of motorcycle - more than 2 motorcycles
abreast in a lane
40-6-312EUnsafe operation of motorcycle - motorcycle headlights/taillights
not illuminated
40-6-313 Clinging to other vehicle
40-6-314A Unsafe operation of motorcycle - motorcycle footrest violation
40-6-314B Unsafe operation of motorcycle - motorcycle handlebars violation
40-6-315AMotorcycle equipment not used properly - motorcycle headgear
not used properly
40-6-315B Motorcycle equipment not used properly - motorcycle
windshield/eye protection violation
40-6-331 Motorized cart violation
40-6-352 Safety equipment not used properly
40-6-390 Reckless driving - suspension if driver under 21
40-6-390A Reckless driving - suspension if driver under 21
40-6-391 Driving under influence drugs/alcohol X
40-6-391A Driving under influence drugs/alcohol X
40-6-391A1 Driving under the influence/alcohol X
40-6-391A2 Driving under the influence/drugs X
40-6-391A3 Driving udner influence - inhalants X
40-6-391A4 DUI - Drugs and alcohol combined X
40-6-391A5 Driving under the influence - alcohol - DUI Alcohol - per se X
40-6-391A6 DUI - marijuana X
40-6-391C4 DUI - felony X
40-6-391I Commercial driving impaired X X
40-6-391K1 DUI - under the age of 21 X
40-6-391L Child endangerment X
40-6-393.1A Vehicular feticide - 1st degree X
40-6-393.1B Vehicular feticide - 2nd degree
40-6-393A Vehicular homicide - 1st degree X
40-6-393B Vehicular homicide - 2nd degree X
40-6-393C Vehicular homicide - 1st degree X
40-6-394 Serious injury by vehicle X
40-6-395 Fleeing or attempting to elude police X
40-6-395A Fleeing or attempting to elude police X
40-6-395B5A Felony fleeing police or roadblock X
40-6-397 Aggressive driving - suspension if driver under 21 X
Accidents
Motorcycles,
Motorized
Carts, Mopeds
Serious Traffic
Offenses
Stopping,
Standing,
Parking
Driver Records 30
(Continued on next page)
Type of
Offense
Georgia Legal
CodeViolation Description
Only Reportable
for Commercial
Vehicles
Mandatory
Suspension
40-8-1 Driving with no or without lights X
40-8-2All parts must be esafely maintained - vehicle equipment
violation X
40-8-3 Load dragging on highway X
40-8-4 Required emblem not used X
40-8-5 Tampering with odometer X
40-8-6 Altered Suspension X
40-8-6.1 Tampering with odometer X
40-8-7 Unsafe vehicle or equipment X
40-8-8 Defective or missing speedometer X
40-8-9 Name requirements not properly displayed X
40-8-10 Use of nitrous oxide in passenger car X
40-8-20 Operating without lights required by law X
40-8-21 defective or no lights X
40-8-22 Defective or no headlights X
40-8-22B Defective or no headlights X
40-8-23 Defective or no taillights X
40-8-24 Defective or no reflectors X
40-8-25 Brake light/turn signal violation X
40-8-26 Brake light/turn signal violation X
40-8-27 No warning for projecting load X
40-8-28 Failure to dim lights when parked X
40-8-28D Failure to dim lights when parked X
40-8-29 Auxilliary light violation X
40-8-30 Light violation X
40-8-31 Failure to dim lights when parked X
40-8-32 Amber light violation X
40-8-33 Agricultural vehicle light violation X
40-8-34 Light violation X
40-8-35 Low speed vehicle light violation X
40-8-50 Defective or insufficient brakes X
40-8-51 Defective brakes X
40-8-52 Parking brake violation X
40-8-53 Brake violation X
40-8-54 Defective brakes X
40-8-70 Warning device violation X
40-8-71 Exhaust system violation X
40-8-72 Rear view obstruction X
40-8-73 Window, windshield, or wiper violation X
40-8-73.1 Window tint violation X
40-8-74 Defective tires X
40-8-75 Mud flap violation X
40-8-76 Child or youth restraint not used properly
40-8-76.1 Seat belt violation - adult
40-8-76.E3 Seat belt violation - minor
40-8-79 Unsecured passengers in open area/vehicle X
40-8-90 Use of lights/siren prohibited X
40-8-92 Use of lights/siren prohibited X
40-8-96 Emergency vehicle violation X
40-8-110 School bus marking violation X
40-8-111 School bus equipment violation X
40-8-112 School bus specification violation X
40-8-115 School bus marking violation X
40-8-116 School bus marking violation X
40-8-130 Emission violation X
40-8-181 Exhaust system used improperly/obstructed X
40-8-182 Emission violation X
40-8-183 Emission violation X
42-8-117 Interlock probation violation X
Equipment
Driver Records 31
Type of
Offense
Georgia Legal
CodeViolation Description
Only Reportable
for Commercial
Vehicles
Mandatory
Suspension
46-7-3Failure to obey motor carrier rules/regs - operating a motor
carrier without a valid certificate X
46-7-15Failure to obey motor carrier rules/regs - failure to register a
motor carrier X
46-7-16Failure to obey motor carrier rules/regs- failure to register an
interstate commerce carrier X
46-7-27 Failure to obey motor carrier rules/regs (generic) X
46-7-38Failure to obey motor carrier rules/regs - failure to obey rates
regulations X
46-7-39 Failure to obey motor carrier rules/regs (generic) X
48-2-31 Expired or no registration or title X
48-8-9 Expired or no registration or title X
48-9-38 Expired or no registration or title X
48-9-39 Expired or no registration or title X
32-1-10 Commercial Misdemeanor (generic commercial violation) X
32-9-4 Improper lane usage
40-5-54A Motor vehicle used in felony X
40-5-55 Refused test - implied consent X
40-5-56 Failure to appear for trial or court appearance X
40-5-67.1C Administrative per se X
40-6-2 Failure to obey police/peace officer
40-6-6 Emergency vehicle violation
40-6-14 Equipment used improperly - excessive noise
40-6-15 Operating vehicle with suspended/cancelled/revoked registration X
40-6-16 Improper passing of emergency/towing/highway vehicle
40-6-17 Traffic control device preemption emitter violat.
40-6-240 Improper backing
40-6-241 Failure to exercise due care
40-6-241.1 Unlawful use of wireless device (under 18)
40-6-241.2 Operating a vehicle while text messaging (18 or older)
40-6-242 Driver's view obstructed
40-6-243 Opening door into traffic
40-6-244 Unsafe operation of vehicle
40-6-245 Improper driving - canyon/mountain/highway
40-6-246 Coasting prohibited
40-6-247 Following emergency vehicle
40-6-248 Improper lane/LOC on fire hose
40-6-248.1 Failure to secure load - resulting in littering or safety hazard X
40-6-249 Littering from a motor vehicle X
40-6-250 Use of equipment prohibited by law
40-6-251 Driving in circular or zig-zag course
40-6-252 Parking violation
40-6-253 Possession of open alcohol container - by driver only
40-6-253.1 Transportation of etiologic agent
40-6-254 Failure to secure load
40-6-255 Not paying for gasoline - suspension on 2nd+ conviction X
46-11-4 Hazardous materials violation X
Source: DDS Traffic Court Reference Manual
Other
Violations
Motor Carriers
Sales & Use
Tax
The Performance Audit Division was established in 1971 to conduct in-depth reviews of state-funded programs.
Our reviews determine if programs are meeting goals and objectives; measure program results and effectiveness;
identify alternate methods to meet goals; evaluate efficiency of resource allocation; assess compliance with laws
and regulations; and provide credible management information to decision-makers. For more information, contact
us at (404)657-5220 or visit our website at www.audits.ga.gov.
