Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 4 P4 ppsx

A draft may be payable to a designated payee or to the bearer—the person who has posses- sion of the draft at the time it is presented to the drawee for payment—pursuant to the drawer’s directions. A draft is sometimes synonymous with a BILL OF EXCHANGE, COMMERCIAL PAPER,orNEGOTIA- BLE INSTRUMENT . DRAFTER The person who draws or frames a legal document such as a will, pleading, conveyance, or contract. One who writes an original legislative bill for the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives is called the drafter of that bill. DRAIN A trench or ditch to convey water from wet land; a channel through which water may flow off. The word has no technical legal meaning. Any hollow space in the ground, natural or artificial, where water is collected and passes off, is a ditch or drain. Also, sometimes, the easement or servitude (acquired by grant or prescription) that consists of the right to drain water through another’s land. A number of states have drainage statutes in order to protect the welfare of the public. Such statutes provide for the construction of drains in areas that are swampy, marshy, or overflowed past their natural boundaries. Also contained in drainage statutes are provisions that regulate the creation and organization of drainage districts. The state legislature has the discretion to decide which lands will be included within a particular drainage district. For example, such a district might include territory of a city or village or property in two or more counties. The specific plan for the construction of a drain is within the discretion of local auth orities as modified by limitations or restr ictions set forth by state drainage statutes. Only land that will be benefited through drainage improve- ments shou ld properly be included within a drainage district. In certain instances, liability has been extended to drainage districts that have failed to maint ain existing drains. In order to remedy this situation, in some cases, landowne rs are given a certain portion of a drain to clean out and maintain in proper repair. Regardless of whether or not a landowner is specifically given the responsibility for maintenance, a landowner may only close or obstruct a drain with his or her neighbors’ consent. If the land of an indivi- dual is injured because a public drain is being obstructed by a neighbor, then the person can BRING SUIT for the damage resulting therefrom. Subject to limitations imposed by the U.S. Constitution, a state legislature has the power to authorize drainage districts to prescribe special assessments to cover the cost of drainage improvements. Generally, only those lands inclu ded within a particular district are subject to such assessment. In certain states, school lands are exempted from assessments that drainage dis- tricts levy. Assessment review boards frequently entertain objections to drainage assessments; however, if no such board exists, assessments are subject to judicial reviews in the courts. A property owner can, therefore, go to court to challenge what he or she believes to be an unjust drainage assessment against his or her land. DRAMSHOP ACTS Statutes, also called civil liability acts, that impose civil liability upon one who sells intoxicating liquors when a third party has been injured as a result of the purchaser’s intoxication and such sale has either caused or contributed to the state of intoxication. A dramshop is any type of drinking establish- ment where liquor is sold for consumption on the premises, such as a bar, a saloon, or, in some cases, a restaurant. Under DRAMSHOP ACTS, the seller of liquor can be sued by an individual who is injured by an intoxicated person. Such acts protect the injured THIRD PARTY not only against personal injuries and property damages resulting directly from the actions of the intoxicated individual (such as those resulting from drunken driving or ASSAULT AND BATTERY) but also against the loss of family support owing to such injuries. Generally, the person who became intoxicated cannot sue the seller if she or he is injured, nor can any active participant in the drinking. The dramshop laws are based on the principle that anyone who profits from the sale of alcoholic beverages should be held liable for any resulting damages. For a seller to be held liable, it is unnecessary to show that he or she is negligent, provided it is proved that the seller sold liquor to a habitual drunkard or a person who was already drunk, which is generally illegal in itself. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 18 DRAFTER Dramshop acts originated in the TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT of the mid-1800s. In Illinois, for example, the first such law was passed in 1872 and amended in subsequent decades. By the 1990s more than 40 states had either dram- shop acts or court rulings that made a com- mercial server or seller of alcohol liable if an intoxicated customer caused an accident or injury upon leaving the server’s or seller’s establishment (e.g., the Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Control Act [Iowa Code Ann. § 123.92 (West)]). Typical modern statutes include limitations on awards, specifications regarding the commercial defendant’s type and degree of liability, and a STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. By the late 1980s, dramshop statutes and court rulings had caused a dramatic increase in lawsuits involving liquor liability, with a corre- sponding increase in damage awards to victims. As a result, liquor liability in surance became increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain. To guard against costly dramshop suits, liquor vendors have taken a variety of steps to prevent negligent behavior: eliminating “happy hours,” reducing late-night operation, offering free Breathalyzer tests, instituting designated- driver programs, and training servers on how to deal with intoxicated patrons. Several states have made precautions such as these mandatory. Some, such as Oklahoma, have banned happy hours (see 37 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 537 [West]); others have required server training. Many insurance companies either require such preven- tive measures or offer incentives for their use. Many states have extended dramshop liability to corporate or individual social hosts who provide alcoholic beverages without charge. This new source of liability has produced an extraordi- nary number of lawsuits. Accordingly, individuals wishing to host a social orbusiness function in one of these states would now be required to take many of the same precautions commercial establishments do, including obtaining liquor liability insurance, or else they would have to hold their gathering at an insured bar or hotel. FURTHER READINGS Allen, Jeffrey Wynn. 1994. “Illinois Dram Shop Reform.” John Marshall Law Review 28 (fall). Fancher, Catherine. 1993. “One Too Many? … Dram Shop Act….” Texas Tech Law Review 25. Smith, Jacob D. 2002. “Rethinking a Broker’s Legal Obligations to its Customers—The Dramshop Cases.” Securities Regulation Law Journal 30, no. 1 (spring). Smith, Richard. 2000. “A Comparative Analysis of Dram- shop Liability and a Proposal for Uniform Legislation.” The Journal of Corporation Law 25 (spring). Weiss, Ann E. 1987. The Supreme Court. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow. DRAW To aim a firearm, or deadly weapon, at a particular target. To prepare a written bill of exchange, COMMERCIAL PAPER, draft, or negotiable instrument and place one’s signature on it, creating a legal obligation under its terms. To write a document, such as a deed, complaint, or petition, including the essential information necessary to make it legally effective upon its execution by the designated parties. To lawfully remove money from an account held in a bank, treasury, or other depository. DRAWEE A person or bank that is ordered by its depositor, a drawer, to withdraw money from an account to pay a designated sum to a person according to the terms of a check or a draft. CROSS REFERENCE Commercial Paper. ALCOHOL-RELATED TRAFFIC FATALITIES, 1990 TO 2007 Percentage of traffic fatalities involving alcohol-impaired driver or nonoccupant 0 10 20 30 40 50 1990 2000 2007 1995 60 Year .01 to .07 BAC a .08 or over BAC a a BAC stands for blood alcohol concentration. 50.7 42.5 41.5 38.0 6.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 44.0 36.5 35.5 32.0 Dramshop Acts SOURCE: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, annual. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PER- MISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION DRAWEE 19 DRAWER A person who orders a bank to withdraw money from an account to pay a designated person a specific sum according to the term of a bill, a check, or a draft. An individual who writes and signs a commercial paper, thereby becoming obligated under its terms. DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 15 L. Ed. 691 (1857), the U.S. Supreme Court faced the divisive issue of SLAVERY. Chief Justice ROGER B. TANEY, a former slaveholder, authored the Court’s opinion, holding that the U.S. Constitution permitted the unrestricted ownership of black slaves by white U.S. citizens. In a stunning 7–2 decision, the Court declared that slaves and emancipated blacks could not be full U.S. citizens. Any attempt by Congress to limit the spread of slavery in U.S. territories was held to be a direc t violation of slave owners’ due process rights. Chief Justice Taney’s opinion fueled the nineteenth-century abolitionist movement and helped push the United States toward civil war. Although Taney was an accomplished jurist who served as chief justice for 29 years, his record was permanently tarnished by what many considered to be his flawed reasoning in the Dred Scott case. African slavery was introduced in the American colonies in 1619. As the new country grew, slavery spread throughout the South, where cheap labor was needed for harvesting large cotton and tobacco crops. During the early nineteenth century, opponents of slavery began to organize in the North. Abolitionists initially wanted to restrict slavery to the south ern states, but their ultimate goal was to outlaw black servitude throughout the United States. As new territories from the LOUISIANA PURCHASE applied for U.S. statehood, the issue became a sticking point. Most south- erners supported the spread of slavery, viewing it as a necessary condition for their social, political, and economic survival. Most north- erners favored the containment and eventual eradication of slavery. Although political mod- erates called for voters in each new territory to resolve the slavery issue, a national consensus on this point was never reached. The 1820 Missouri Compromise was an attempt by the U.S. Congress to balance the competing viewpoints. Congress passed a law designating as free states any new states located north of a line drawn across the Louisiana Purchase. New states south of the line would be slave states. In other words, slavery was out- lawed north of Missouri’s border and west to the Rocky Mountains. After the passage of the Missouri Compromise, two new states were admitted: Missouri, where slavery was permit- ted, and Maine, where it was forbidden. The Missouri Compromise did not improve the bitter rivalry between pro-slavery and anti- slavery forces. The controversial Dred Scott opinion further exacerbated regional tensions. Dred Scott was a slave owned by Dr. John Emerson, a U.S. Army officer. In 1834 Scott moved with Emerson from Missouri, a slave state, to Illinois, a state in which slavery was prohibited by statute. Scott and Emerson also lived in northern U.S. territories that later became the free states of Minnesota and Wisconsin. In 1838 Scott and his family returned to Missouri with Emerson. When Emerson died, Scott sued Emerson’s widow in Missouri state court, seeking free- dom for himself and his family. Scott’s 1846 lawsuit claimed that his prior residence in a free state and free territories entitled him to liberty and back wages since 1834. Scott won his case in the lower court. Emerson’s widow appealed to the state supreme Dred Scott sued for his freedom in 1857, claiming that his residence with his owner in a free state and free territories entitled him to liberty. The Supreme court ruled against Scott, sparking outrage among abolitionists. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 20 DRAWER court, which sided with her. Then she married Calvin Clifford Chafee, a prominent Massachu- setts abolitionist and member of Congress. The new Mrs. Chafee switched to the abolitionist camp and agreed to seek a federal ruling against slavery on Scott’s behalf. Scott was sold in a sham transaction to Mrs. Chafee’sbrother,JohnF.A.Sanford,an abolitionist from New York. Sanford agreed to participate in the Dred Scott case as a personal protest against slavery. (Mr. Sanford’sname was misspelled by a clerk in the case title as “Sandford” and has remained so in court records.) Scott filed a lawsuit against his new owner in federal court. A federal court was able to hear the case because of diversity of jurisdic- tion, which entitles litigants from two different states (in this case, Missouri and New York) to pursue claims in federal court. Like the state lawsuit, the federal case claimed that Scott was no longer a slave, owing to his previous residence in a free state and free territory. The federal court ruled against Scott, who then brought his case before the U.S. Supreme Court in a WRIT of error—an order from an appeals court requiring a trial court to send records to the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The Supreme Court conducted a four-day hearing. Chief Justice Taney delivered what he hoped would be the definitive statement on slavery in the United States. Taney, a respected Maryland lawyer and former U.S. attorney general, had succeeded the legendary JOHN MAR- SHALL as chief justice. He used Dred Scott as a national forum on constitutional rights and race. Chief Justice Taney’s colleague, Associate Justice SAMUEL NELSON, urged the Court to reach a narrow decision based on the facts in Dred Scott. Because Scott’s original action was brought in a Missouri court, Nelson believed simply that state law should prevail in the case. Under Missouri law, a slave’s status was not affected by a temporary change in residence. Chief Justice Taney did not want Scott defeated in a narrow holding. Instead, he wrote a sweeping defense of slavery, emphasizing the slave owners’ constitutional rights and privileges. Taney observed that under the Due Process Clause of the FIFTH AMENDMENT of the U.S. Constitution, no person can be deprived of property without LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. By out- lawing slavery in certain U.S. territories, the Missouri Compromise stripped slave owners of their constitutional right to own property, or “articles of merchandise,” as Taney referred to slaves. Taney found the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. (Actually, the Missouri Com- promise had been repealed by Congress in 1854, but Taney’s ruling nevertheless worried aboli- tionists, who feared that Taney’s findings could be applied to any federal legislation that restricted slavery.) Thus, the Scott decision both sanctioned slavery and encouraged its spread throughout all U.S. territories. Taney’s opinion also declared that black slaves and their descendants could not become U.S. citizens. Because blacks were ineligible for citizenship, they could not sue in federal court. Taney claimed that the architects of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for blacks to have constitutionally protected rights and immuni- ties. The Founding Fathers had regarded blacks as socially and politically unfit. Taney observed that even if Scott were free, he could not appear before federal court, because of his race. How- ever, Tane y determined that Scott was not free, because his brief residence in a free state did not divest him of slave status. President JAMES BUCHANAN hope d that the Supreme Court’s unequivocal ruling in Scott would dispose of the slavery issue once and for all. The opinion had the opposite effect. Outrage among abolitionists and fence-sitters was deep. The nascent REPUBLICAN PARTY benefited from Scott, as new members joined in the wake of the pro-slavery ruling. The Republican party de- nounced the Scott decision, calling for measures to restrict slavery. Presidential candidate ABRAHAM LINCOLN used the case as a campaign issue and pledged to overturn the Court’srulingagainst Scott. Lincoln won the presidential election in 1860, and in 1861, the Civil War began. After the unfortunate ruling, Scott was freed by Sanford and worked as a porter in a St. Louis hotel. He died of tuberculosis in 1858 or 1859. Sanford was institutionalized for mental illness, a condition his friends traced to his public involvement in the Scott fiasco. The Supreme Court’s reputation suffered greatly owing to its poor handling of the slavery issue. Newspaper editors and politicians lam- basted the Court for its colossal misstep. His- torians single out Taney’s Dred Scott decision as one of the lowest points in U.S. jurisprudence. FURTHER READINGS Bernstein, Richard, and Jerome Agel. 1989. The Supreme Court: Into the Third Century. New York: Walker. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION DRED SCOTT V. SANDFORD 21 Fehrenbacker, Don. 1981. Slavery, Law, and Politics: The Dred Scott Case in Historical Perspective. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. Finkelman, Paul. 1996. “The Dred Scott Case, Slavery and the Politics of Law.” Hamline Law Review 20 (fall). ———. 1997. Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents. New York: St. Martin’s. Gunderson, Cory. 2004. The Dred Scott Decision. Edina, Minn.: Abdo. Herda, D J. 2010. The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow. Streichler, Stuart A. 1997. “Justice Curtis’s Dissent in the Dred Scott Case: An Interpretive Study.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 24 (winter). CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights Acts; “Dred Scott Case” (Appendix, Primary Document); Prejudice; Racial and Ethnic Discriminati on. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) See DWI. DROIT [French, Justice, right, law.] A term denoting the abstract concept of law or a right. Droit is as variable a phrase as the English right or the Latin jus. It signifies the entire body of law or a right in terms of a du ty or obligation. DRUG COURTS Drug courts are a type of special court with jurisdiction over cases involving drug-using offen- ders. Drug courts are treatment-based alternatives to prisons, youth-detention facilities, jails, and probation. These courts make extensive use of comprehensive supervision, drug testing, treatment services, immediate sanctions, and incentives. DRUG COURTS concentrate the efforts of judges, prosecutors, defense counsel, substance-abuse treatment specialists, probation officers, law enforcement and correctional personnel, edu- cational and vocational experts, commun- ity leaders, and others on individuals who are charged with illicit drug abuse. The criminal justice system works cooperatively with treatment systems and others to provide an offender with the necessary tools to get into recovery, stay in recovery, and lead a productive, crime-free life. The drug court acts to help offenders change their lives in order to stop criminal activity, rather than focusing only on punishment of offenders. Drug courts also help to provide consistent responses to drug offenses among the judiciary, and they can foster coordination between intervention agencies and resources, thus increasing the cost-effectiveness of drug- intervention programs. Successful completion of the drug court’s treatment or intervention regimen usually results in the dismissal of drug charges, shortened or suspended sentences, or a combination of these. Participants acquire the wherewithal to rebuild their lives. Several studies have supported the effective- ness of drug courts. According to a report published in 2003 by the Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania, “drug courts outperform virtually all other strategies that have been used with drug-involved offen ders.” Another study produced by researchers at Colum- bia University concluded that “drug use and criminal behavior are substantially reduced while offenders are participating in drug court.” In 2005 the Government Accountability Office issued a report entitled Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates RECIDIVISM Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. The report showed that adults who entered into drug court programs had a significantly lower rate of re-arrest. First Drug Courts In 1989 the nation’s first drug court was established in Miami, Florida. CIRCUIT COURT Judge Herbert M. Klein had become troubled by the negative effects of drug offenses on Dade County. He became determined to address the problem caused by widespread drug use. This first drug court became a model program for the nation. Drug courts that followed the Miami model essentially began as diversionary programs that dealt with non-violent offenders. These subjects typically were charged with relatively minor offenses, such as simple drug possession or charges of driving under the influence. At first, dru g courts were geared toward adult populations. The successes of adult drug courts in intervention and in changing the lives of adult offenders prompted juvenile courts to establish similar drug court programs aimed at juvenile offenders. Juvenile drug courts likewise have proven successful, and now many jurisdic- tions includ e family drug courts that primarily hear substance-abuse and neglect cases. Goals of Drug Court Programs Differing needs across jurisdictions have resulted in a variety of drug courts in terms of their structure, scope, and target populations, but they all share three primary goals: reduction of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 22 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) recidivism, reduction of substance abuse among participants, and rehabilitation of participants. To achieve these goals, drug courts generally structure themse lves to include the following features: n Incorporation of drug testing into case processing n Creation of a non-adversarial relationship between the offender and the court n Identification of offenders who are in need of treatment and referring them to treat- ment as soon as possible after arrest n Access to a continuum of treatment and rehabilitation services n Monitoring of abstinence through frequent, mandatory drug testing n Estab lishment of a coordinated strategy to govern drug court responses to offenders’ compliance n Maintenance of judicial interaction with each drug court participant n Monitoring and evaluation of program goals and effectiveness n Continuing education to p romote effective drug court planning, implementation, and operations n Forging of partnerships among drug courts, public agencies, and community-based orga- nizations in order to generate local support and to enhance drug court effectiveness Drug courts can be used for a variety of case types and are adaptable enough to fit the needs and acceptability of any given community. Jurisdictions tailor their drug courts to meet the specific needs of their communities. Most drug courts are pre-plea courts, but some drug courts are post-plea, and others are used as a method of alternative sentencing. In a pre-plea program, charges are deferred while defendants are actively participating in the drug court program. At that point in the process, they have not pleaded guilty to any charges. This program is designed principally for non-violent, first-time, low-risk offenders. Post-plea drug courts are not as common but are used most ly in the cases of more serious offenders when the PROSECUTOR wants to ensure a guilty plea in order to avoid a trial. The chances of a more serious offender successfully completing a program in a drug court might be reduced, but the prosecution’s trial-preparation time is saved in the event of failure. As drug courts have consistently proven to be effective at controlling both the drug use and the criminality of drug-using offenders, com- munities have successfully expanded drug court programs to include those who are on proba- tion for drug offenses, exte nding them to drug- using offenders who are charged with non-drug offenses. Some jurisdictions are even beginning to apply the drug court model to cases of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). In doing so, DUI courts, like the traditional drug courts, make DUI offenders accountable for their actions in ways that go beyond standard punitive measures such as fines and INCARCERA- TION , thus helping to bring about a behavioral change among some DUI offenders that ends DUI recidivism, halts the abuse of alcohol, and protects the public. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 The VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1994, 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 1033, 1034, signed by President WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON on September 13, 1994, was a key factor behind the expansion of the drug court movement. This statute provided federal support for planning, implementing, and enhancing drug courts for nonviolent drug offenders. The act was the product of six years of bipartisan efforts. As of 2009 it remained one of the largest crime bills in the history of the country and continued to provide for a competitive grant program to support state and local drug courts that provide supervision and spe cialized services to offenders who have rehabilitation potential. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) administers the drug court grant program that was established under the 1994 act. The BJA provides financial and technical assistance, training, program guidance, and leadership. It offers grants to jurisdictions for planning, imple- menting, or enhancing existing drug courts. In conjunction with the National Institute of Justice, BJA also evaluates drug court programs to identify the most effective program features and organizational structures to combat drug abuse and crime. State Courts, local courts, units of local gover nment, and American Indian tribal governments may apply for funding. Some $29 million was available in 1995, and $971 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION DRUG COURTS 23 million was authorized under this program to cover the four years from 1996 to 2000. The record of success, supported by large, federal support initiatives such as the 1994 act, led to a rapid proliferation of drug courts throughout the United States. By the end of 2000 nearly 600 drug courts were in operation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and two federal districts. By 2009 the number of drug courts had expanded to 2,140, with another 284 being planned or developed. Drug courts paved the way for another criminal justice innovation: therapeutic juris- prudence. Accordingly, several jurisdictions are developing special dockets that are modeled after the drug court format. Courts and judges have become more receptive to new approaches and thus have brought about a proliferation of problem-solving courts, including DUI courts, domestic-violence courts, mental-health courts, and re-entry courts. FURTHER READINGS Hennessy, James J., and Nathaniel J. Pallone, eds. 2001. Drug Courts in Operation: Current Research. New York: Haworth Press. Huddleson, C. West III, Karen Freeman-Wilson, Douglas B. Marlowe, and Aaron Russell. 2005. Painting the Current Picture: A National Report Card on Drug Courts and Other Problem Solving Court Programs in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Assistance. National Drug Court Institute. 2006. Drug Court Review. Alexandria, Va.: National Drug Court Institute. Nolan, James L., Jr. 2001. Reinventing Justice: The American Drug Court Movement. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press. Nolan, James L., Jr., ed. 2002.Drug Courts in Theory and in Practice. Hawthorne, N.Y.: Aldine De Gruyter. U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2005. Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. CROSS REFERENCES Drugs and Narcotics; Drug Enforcement Administration; Office of National Drug Control Policy. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION The DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION (DEA) was established in 1973 by president RICHARD M. NIXON as part of the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,thus uniting a number of federal drug agencies that had often worked at cross-purposes. Its mission is to “enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States and bring to the criminal and civil justice system those organiza- tions and principal members of organizations who are involved in the growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances in the United States.” In addition to its domestic oversight, the DEA has sole responsibility for ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. DEA Domestic Arrests, 1990–2008 SOURCE: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, “Stats & Facts,” available online at http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/ statistics.html (accessed on Au g ust 14, 2009). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 22.7 1990 Year Number of arrests (in thousands) 25.2 1995 39.7 2000 30.2 2002 28.5 2003 27.0 2004 29.0 2005 30.0 2006 29.1 2007 26.4 2008 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 24 DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION coordinating and pursuing U.S. drug investiga- tions abroad. The DEA also works closely with federal, state, local, and INTERNATIONAL LAW enforcement agencies to address drugs and drug-related crime. The Drug Enforcement Administration concentrates on investigating and prosecuting organizations and their members who are involved in the cultivation, production, SMUG- GLING , distribution, or diversion of controlled substances in, or destined for, the United States. The agency seeks to disrupt thes e organizations by arresting their members, confiscating their drugs, and seizing their assets. It creates, manages, and supports enforcement-related programs, both domestically and international- ly, aimed at reducing the availability of and demand for controlled substances. This effort requires the ongoing management of a national narcotics intelligence system, the fruits of which are shared with federal, state, and local law enforcement authorities. Because the importation of contro lled substances is the main source of illegal dru gs, the DEA has increasingly put its energies into international enforcement programs. It cur- rently has 87 foreign offices in 63 countries and maintains contacts with the UNITED NATIONS, INTERPOL (the international police organiza tion, which is headquartered in Paris and has approximately 180 member countries), and other international drug enforcement agencies. Training agents and other law enforcement personnel on the intricacies of the drug trade has led the DEA to create rigorous educational courses. It provides training to DEA agents and support personnel, as well as to state and local police, international law enforcement officials, and other law enforcement employees. In 1999 this effort took a significant step forward with the opening of the DEA Justice Training Center in Quantico, Virginia. Apart from training, the DEA also conducts an international visitor program. The agency briefs foreign officials and U.S. diplomats on drug trafficking devel- opments and new enforcement initiatives. Collecting human and electronic intelligence is a major part of DEA work. Its organization supports efforts to collect, analyze, and dissem- inate drug-related intelligence. The agency maintains a number of airplanes that provide sophisticated electronic, air-based assistance to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. It also operates eight laboratories in the United States where seized drugs are analyzed and from which evidence for drug prosecutions by law enforcement comes. Since the 1990s the DEA has increasingly emphasized asset FORFEITURE. Federal law pro- vides that profits from drug-related crimes, as well as property used to facilitate certain crimes, are subject to forfeiture to the government. Asset forfeiture removes the profit from these illegal activities, and it can financially disable drug- trafficking organizations. Assets that are acquired through forfeiture are sold, and the money is put into the Asset Forfeiture Fund, which is used to help crime victims and to fund law enforcement programs. Property is seized by the DEA only when it is determined to be a tool for, or the proceeds of, illegal activities such as drug traf- ficking, ORGANIZED CRIME,orMONEY LAUNDERING. The DEA seeks both to destroy illegal narcotics and to reduce the demand for drugs. For example, the DEA works to halt the spread of marijuana cultivation to the United States through the Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression Program (DCE/SP), which as of the early 2000s was the only nationwide program that exclusively targets marijuana. In 2007 the DEA provided resources to support the 114 state and local law enforcement agencies that participate in its marijuana eradication efforts. In addition, the DEA monitors state legislation to combat marijuana legalization. The DEA also funds a Demand Reduction program in the hopes that education will lead to reduced drug use. The DEA employs 31 demand reduction coordinators who work in communities throughout the United States. The DEA interdiction programs along the southern border of the United States are well known. The El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) was created in 1974 to increase border security and to serve as a strategic drug and border enforcement facili ty. It coordinates enforcement intelligence with state, local, and other federal law enforcement agencies. EPIC also serves as the training center and real-time information outlet for Operation Pipeline, a national highway interdiction program. The DEA fleet of 106 aircraft routinely patrol this border. In February 2009 a major DEA sting operation, culminating after almost two years of preparation, resulted in more than 750 arrests and the seizure of over 20 tons of narcotics, as well as boats, aircraft, firearms, and tens of millions of dollars in cash, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION 25 from one of the most significant Mexican drug cartels operating in the United States. The DEA also participate s in the Hig h Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs) program, which was authorized by the Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and is administered by the OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY. Its mission is to reduce drug trafficking throughout the United States by coordinating federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts. In 2004, 28 HIDTAs existed in the United States, a reduction from the 31 that existed in 1999. With the growing popularity of community- based policy in the 1990s, the DEA sought ways to provide local law enforcement agencies with support for reducing violent crime related to drugs. Out of this work came the Mobile Enforcement Team (METs) progra m in 1995, which uses DEA and state and local law enforcement personnel and resources to target high-crime areas. Thanks to the program, by August 2000, 265 deployments were completed resulting in more than 11,000 arrests of violent drug criminals. In areas where the DEA has deployed MET s, assaults have been reduced by 15 percent, homicides by 16 percent, and robberies by 14 percen t. METs also contributed to the overall national decrease in violent crime during the 1990s. By 2002 the DEA had identified heroin and me thamphetamine as major threats to the United States. Although heroin is imported to the United States, methamphetamine is produced domestically in numerous meth labs throughout the country. In addition, the DEA argued that international terrorists had used drug trafficking and the laundering of proceeds from this trafficking to fund their violent actions against the United States and other nations. The DEA labeled these persons narco- terrorists, and it maintains ongoing programs to address narco-terrorism. Throughout 2008 , then-presidential candi- date BARACK OBAMA pledged that he would end DEA raids on medical marijuana-dispensing sites, although following his election the DEA continued to crack down on such entities. Obama stated that he believed that the federal government should not interfere with the decisions of state governments, such as Cali- fornia, that have legalized the use of marijuana for medicinal use. FURTHER READINGS Drug Enforcement Agency. Available online at www.dea.gov (accessed May 16, 2009). Conery, Ben. 2009. “DEA Bust Nets 751 Arrests.” Washington Times (Feb. 25). Dinan, Stephen, and Ben Conery. 2009. “DEA Pot Raids Go On; Obama Opposes.” Washington Times (Feb. 5). CROSS REFERENCE Drugs and Narcotics. DRUGGIST A druggist is an individual who, as a regular course of business, mixes, compounds, dispenses, and sells medicines and similar health aids. The term druggist may be used interchange- ably with pharmacist. Ordinarily, druggists must be registered under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. [1938]). Federal drug abuselawsmakeprovisionsforthespecialregis- tration of any individual who handles controlled substances. Regulation As a public health measure, states have the power to regulate the preparation and dispens- ing of drugs. They can proscribe the sale of certain substances without a prescription and specifically designate who is permitted to deal in prescription drugs. Statutes govern the proce- dures that must be observed when drugs are handled, as well as the steps that must be taken for the inspection of drugstores and pharmacy records by agents of the state. States can prop erly mandate that pharma- cists be licensed, provided the necessary quali- fications are not unreasonable. For example, although it would be reasonable for a state to require that pharmac ists earn college degrees, it would be unreasonable to require them to be natural-born citizens of the United States. State legislatures have the authority to prohibit any type of improper competition that would tend to lower the service standards. Education and License A druggist must ordinarily be a graduate of an accredited pharmacy school and be of sound moral character. In some instances, he or she might be required to pass a written qualifying examination. An individual who conforms to all the requisite qualifications cannot be refused a license arbitrarily. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 26 DRUGGIST An individual who is licensed in one state does not have the authority to dispense drugs in other states, except where one state consents to recognize a license that has been issued in another state. A license might have to be periodically renewed and can be revoked or suspended for misconduct, such as the selling of an unlabeled drug, the unauthorized substitution of a chea- per fo r a more expensive drug, or the sale of prescription drugs to an individua l who does not have a valid prescription. Any state board decision to grant, revoke, or suspend a license is a proper subject for court review. A judge has the power to modify the decision of the board in the event that it is either arbitrary or unsupported by evidence. Any business or individual engaged in handling drugs has a legal obligation to exercise proper care. A druggist does not have the duty to fill every prescription that is presented, and he or she is not permitted to fill a prescription that appears to be a sham. A druggist who refuses to fill a prescription must return such prescription to the customer. The pharmacist is not permit- ted to retain it, for example, merely because money is owed by the customer. Since the 1970s some pharmacists have refused to fill prescrip- tions for contraceptives, and emergency contra- ceptives that prevent pregnancy after sexual intercourse. They have invoked religious and moral objections for their refusal. Some states have enacted co nscience clause laws, which permit druggists to do so, whereas other states have passed laws mandating that druggists fill such prescriptions. Pharmacists are required to maintain writ- ten records of the drugs they sell and must allow the proper state officials to inspect such records. It is not ordinarily unlawful for a pharmacist to fill a prescription on the direction of a doctor who telephones it in, even if the doctor does not subsequently send a written authorization. The pharmacist, however, is required to make a written record at the time the prescription is filled. Although a pharmacist is not required to know ev erything possible about drugs, he or she is required to be as skilled as most others in the profession. Additionally, a pharmacist owes customers a high degree of care in the service given to them, and they may properly make the assumption that the drugs that they are sold are suitable for the use that he or she recommends. Customers can rely upon any specific claims that the pharmacist makes for the drugs. Liability for Injuries A druggist who has failed to comply with the legal responsibilities of the profession can be subject to a legal action by a consumer. Liability is extended to a licensed pharmacist for his or her own NEGLIGENCE as well as the negligence of employees who work for him or her. The pharmacist is not ordinarily held liable for injuries sustained due to medicines sold by him or her in their original packages. Drugstores A state can require that a drugstore be registered, and some mandate that the individ- ual who runs the store be a licensed pharmacist. Regardless of whether this is required, only a licensed pharmacist is permitted to dispense drugs. In addition, dependi ng on individual state statu te, some types of drugs can be sold only by a pharmacist. Certain types of drugs have been designated patent medicines and household remedies, such as hydrogen peroxide, zinc oxide, camphor olive oil, aspirin, isopropyl alcohol, and essence of peppermint, and they may or may not be sold exclusively by pharmacists. Foods ordinarily do not fall under the category of drugs to be sold only by pharmacists regardless of health claims that are made for them. Vitamins are regarded as medicines i n some instances and as food in Druggists must ordinarily be a graduate of an accredited pharmacy school. Because they handle controlled substances, they must also be licensed and registered. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION DRUGGIST 27 . goals: reduction of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 22 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI) recidivism, reduction of substance abuse among participants, and rehabilitation of participants. To. annual. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PER- MISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION DRAWEE 19 DRAWER A person who orders a bank. in itself. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 18 DRAFTER Dramshop acts originated in the TEMPERANCE MOVEMENT of the mid-1800s. In Illinois, for example, the first such law was passed