# Amicus Curiae Brief — Pierce County v. Guillen > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385014_0545%3A17 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2003 - **Citation:** 537 U.S. 129 ## Text \ Suprome Overt Ua. \D PILED ae No. 01-1229 JUL 3 Mp In The Supreme Court of the Ani ates — + PIERCE COUNTY, Petitioner, V. IGNACIO GUILLEN, AS LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR JENNIFER GUILLEN AND ALMA GUILLEN, MINORS; AND MARIANO GUILLEN, AS LEGAL GUARDIAN FOR PAULINA GUILLEN, Respondents. + On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Washington S AMICUS BRIEF OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER + RICHARD P. IEYOUB Attorney General JOHN C. YOUNG* JAMES R. DAWSON Assistant Attorneys General 626 N. 4th Street, Fifth Floor - Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9095 (225) 342-8717 and LAWRENCE A. DURANT General Counsel, State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development P. O. Box 94245 1201 Capitol Access Road Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9245 (225) 379-1207 *Counsel of Record for Amicus Curiae COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO. (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 al) Y 4 id i Ege Pty Behe Fon Pee Te te te PRES FasG Mh af > TABLE OF CONTENTS ~— Page eS GI sictetenecnnionintennmnmeniianin i TAs OF ALTER E EEE ccccccccvcccceccccccccscvcccccocccesene iv INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE .............ccccseceeeeees 1 FO 2 ITE SeeT —_—— ry App. 6 Crash Data Elements Collected at the PRRIIID.. ccccocaccsenescsennscsesneqetasncsseensenenemesenentns 21 Vehicle Data Elements Collected at the RII... .ccosccsnssesesnenesecnsensenseossemensaneseneetns 29 Person Data Elements Collected at the IN... ssssanadnensenenendasnsunniatnusdanesatenseeennant 41 Crash Derived Data Elements ................. 53 Vehicle Linked Data Element .................. 57 Vehicle Derived Data Elements................ 57 Person Linked Data Elements ................. 61 Roadway Linked Data Elements.............. 63 EOD —occccccncscsnsncssessnssnsneneoescsossnsnssssnsonessenseesens 72 LIST OF APPENDICESG.............ccsssscccssseseeereesseeeeesers 102 Appendix A: State and Province Codes........... 102 Appendix B: Dates and Times .................0:+++++ 105 Appendix C: Names .............:ccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 106 Appendix D: Addresses...............::ccsseseeeeeeeeees 108 Appendix E: Vehicle Damage Areas................ 110 Appendix F: Violation and Conviction Codes.. 111 Appendix G: Data Elements Useful for Data LAM AGO...0.00ccscccccccccescccccesscorccccsessssooecssessssoosese 118 Appendix H: Diagram of Trafficway ............... 120 Appendix I: Definitions for Truck Configura- tions and Placards ..............cccceccccrcccreceeseeeeeess 121 Appendix J: Diagram of Work Zone Area........ 122 * - - App. 7 Executive Summary Statewide motor vehicle traffic crash data systems provide the basic information necessary for effective highway and traffic safety efforts at any level of government — local, state or federal. State crash data are used to perform problem identification, establish goals and performance measures, determine progress of specific programs, and support the development and evaluation of highway and vehicle safety countermeasures. Unfortunately, the use of state crash data is often hin- dered by the lack of uniformity between and within states. While standards exist for collection of crash data, their use and application is inconsistent. For example, states do not collect the same information on their crash reporting forms, crash and data element definitions may differ, similar data elements may have different meanings, and/or others may have the same meanings but different values. Inconsistent data within a state, or between multiple states, can result in incorrect interpretations, thus limiting the usefulness of the information. Many states have recently revised their crash data report- ing form, and others are now in the process of doing so. Several states, during their revision process, have con- tacted National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) or Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) seeking guidance. At national meetings, there have been informal] requests for national guidelines for states to use when revising crash forms or working with software vendors. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi- ciency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 required DOT to “ensure national uniform data” and to “establish minimum crite- ria” for reporting of highway deaths and injuries. Renewal of this legislation as the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the Twenty First Century (TEA21) provides incentives App. 8 for states developing plans that include implementation of model data elements approved by the Secretary of Trans- portation. | NHTSA and FHWA are cooperating with the National Association of Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives (NAGHSR) to develop model minimum uniform crash criteria (MMUCC). Development of MMUCC has been structured to obtain maximum input from all sectors of the highway safety community. Over a 20 month period, a straw model was proposed and then revised according to feedback received at meetings, via the Web, email, phone, mail, etc. before producing this final version. © MMUCC includes 75 minimum data elements that need to be collected by police at the crash scene and an additional 38 data elements that can be derived (11 data elements) from those that are collected at the scene or obtained by linking (27 data elements) to other data files, e.g., roadway data, injury data, etc. The total 113 data elements repre- sent a “model” data set which can be expanded as neces- sary to meet a state’s specific needs. A study of the feasibility of implementing MMUCC evalu- ated the data elements collected by the 17 states providing crash data to NHTSA for its State Data System. These seventeen states are currently collecting about 60% of the 75 MMUCC data elements needing to be collected by police at the scene. And on average, they collect an addi- tional 28 data elements not included in MMUCC. Implementation of MMUCC will facilitate improved crash data for highway and traffic safety injury control and public health purposes at the local, state, and federal levels. * - * App. 9 Acknowledgments The development of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) is being sponsored by the National Association of Governors’ Highway Safety Representatives, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration. Numerous state and local agencies and organizations have contributed staff to its development. The participation of the following individu- als is recognized. Frank Carlile Florida Department of Trans- portation David Dickens Charleston West Virginia Police Doug Donscheski Nebraska State Patrol Scott Falb Iowa Department of Trans- portation Rosa Gill North Carolina State Division of Motor Vehicles Dick Harmon Iowa Bureau of Emergency ; Medical Services Don Hillis Missouri Department . of Transportation David Kleppe North Dakota State Highway Patrol David Lawrence California Center for Child- hood Injury Prevention Lance Mathess Ohio State Patrol Creighton Miller South Dakota Office of Acci- dent Records Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Washington Traffic Safety Commission Maryland State Highway Ad- ministration David Mosley Phil Salzberg Manu Shah a+ Powe °° SESE NIN» en - —