THE ANALYSIS IS BASED ON DIRECT OBSERVATION OF THE DETECTION AND APPREHENSION TECHNIQUES USED BY THE SAN DIEGO DRINKING DRIVER SQUAD, INTERVIEWS WITH COURT MEMBERS, AND REVIEWS OF TRANSCRIPTS. AT EACH SUCCESSIVE STAGE OF THE ARREST PROCEDURE, A MORE OBJECTIVE TEST IS APPLIED TO THE SUSPECT (OSTENSIBLY IRREGULAR DRIVING, THE SUSPECT'S EXPLANATION OF HIS SITUATION, FIELD SOBRIETY TEST, AND CHEMICAL TEST). IN THIS MANNER, OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE IS GENERATED FOR USE BY MEMBERS OF THE COURT IN PLEA BARGAINING. CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE POLICE AND COURTS ARE MITIGATED THROUGH THE MUTUAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE TESTS AS OBJECTIVE OR FACTUAL INDICATORS OF A DRIVER'S LEVEL OF INTOXICATION. PROSECUTING AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS ACCEPT THE CHEMICAL TEST AS A QUALITATIVE INDEX OF THE APPROPRIATE INITIAL CHARGE AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. CASES FALLING WITHIN THE NORMATIVE STRUCTURE OF CHARGE REDUCTION ARE EASILY AND EFFICIENTLY PLEA BARGAINED. THERE ARE, HOWEVER, A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT MAY CAUSE MEMBERS OF THE COURT TO INTERPRET THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND NEGOTIATE A CONCLUSION. POLICE AND COURTS HAVE DEVELOPED A SYSTEM OF BUREAUCRATIC NORMS THAT APPEARS TO BE EFFICIENT, INSTITUTIONALLY INTEGRATED, AND CONSONANT WITH THE BASIC IDEALS OF EQUALITY AND DUE PROCESS.