The young man in the dark suit was quietly crying.

He'd kicked a heroin habit years before with the help of Teen Challenge.

But this past spring he'd made a dumb choice. He'd had too much to drink while partying at a restaurant in a bordering county. And then, he admitted in a low voice, "I made the decision to drive home."

Police in Lancaster County pulled him over for speeding: 66 mph in a 45 mph zone. They arrested him for DUI.

Last Monday morning, though, sitting in the wood-paneled commissioners meeting room on the fifth floor of the county courthouse, he appealed for a second chance at rehabilitation.

The four-member Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition panel headed by District Attorney Craig Stedman listened closely to his story.

If they approved his request to enter ARD, he would enroll in an Alcohol and Highway Safety School and perform community service.

If not, he could face a trial, conviction and mandatory jail time. The offense would remain on his permanent record.

Much was at stake.

The young man had recently taken a good-paying industrial job. He was married with two young children.

"I know I have an addictive personality," he said remorsefully, adding that he had already pursued drug and alcohol counseling. "I care for my family."

The ARD panelists considered these factors, but did not coddle him.

Cars are "missiles," Assistant District Attorney Mark Fetterman reminded the man. Anything in front of a vehicle moving at 66 mph gets destroyed.

"Do you think it's fair you're asking for a fifth chance?" asked Northwest Regional Police Officer Frank H. Ember Jr., referring to the man's previous drug-related charges.

The man said he did not.

He admitted that he had driven drunk several times and had gotten away with it.

In the end, on the conditions that he stop drinking and submit to periodic alcohol tests, the panel granted his request.

"Quite honestly," Stedman told the man and his attorney, "I don't know if we're making the right decision or not. We're going to take a risk on you ... so please do not let us down. Do not kill someone."

Crystal balling
This story, part of a Sunday News series on driving under the influence, takes a look at ARD and the ARD review panel that Stedman launched about six months ago.

Five of the 11 ARD cases heard Monday by the panel involved DUIs. (Please see related story for a roundup of the other cases.)

One DUI case involved a waitress given 10 additional hours of community service so she could continue in the ARD program.

Names and specific details of the offenses have been omitted. Decisions in several of the cases are pending.

The panel meets once a month and comprises Ember, who volunteers his time, Stedman and a rotating roster of attorneys from his office.

Last week's reviewers included Assistant District Attorney Carolyn Flannery. Also providing input were Tracey Barley, who coordinates the DUI component of the ARD program, and Melissa Kurtz, coordinator of the non-DUI component.

Lancaster defense attorney Steven L. Breit said the panel is the first of its kind he's seen in 22 years of practice.

"Now you're dealing with a human being whose name was on the application," said Breit, who represented one of the DUI offenders Monday, as well as a woman accused of lying to police.

"I was impressed with how the program ran" Breit added. "They are the last arbiter" of a defendant's future "and they are taking it seriously."

Stedman said he got the idea for the panel one night while mulling over an applicant.

The printed form did not provide sufficient context, said Stedman, who recalled thinking "Boy, I don't know what to do with this ARD. You know what? I want to meet him."

Face time gives prosecutors a better grasp of whether a person will stay out of trouble in the future, according to Stedman, who added that the ARD program is typically for first-time offenders.

The rubber stamp alternative, a couple of days in a cell, "may or may not work," the district attorney said. "We want a long-term resolution that they're not going to drive drunk again."

Participation in the ARD panel review is voluntary. Defendants may choose to tell their own stories or rely on an attorney.

 Applicants may be allowed to enroll in ARD if they have not been convicted of DUI or accepted into a previous ARD program during the past 10 years.

Drivers in accidents involving a fatality are generally excluded.

So are those driving illegally or operating cars with a passenger under 14.

ARD participants pay an initial $600 to the county treasurer and may also be liable for counseling and restitution fees.

Offenders lose their driver's licenses for various durations and perform community service of 35 to 80 hours, based on their blood alcohol content when arrested.

 Stedman toughened the ARD entry qualification this year by setting a maximum blood alcohol level of .24.

Even so, he said, "We're getting more and more requests" for the program. "I think that's good."

The informal ARD panels are "a step back" from the adversarial format of the legal system, Stedman added.

Still, the talk can be blunt. Tears well up often as offenders take responsibility for what they did.

Even with human input from the applicants, deciding on their cases can be hard.

Take the story of the drunk motorcyclist who ran a red light in front of a cop.

"It was a stupid thing I did," said the man, wearing a black T-shirt and sitting at the ARD panel table Monday with his wife.

Fetterman did not dispute it. "People like you kill other people," he said.

Ember asked the motorcyclist, who had had been arrested for DUI in the early 1990s, what he was most worried about.

"If I was to go to jail, I would lose my job," replied the man. He explained that he has vowed to stop drinking a six-pack or two every weekend, which he said he did mostly because he enjoyed the taste.

"What's next?" Ember prodded. "Homicide by vehicle?"

"Tell me the truth," Stedman said, turning to the man's wife, "is he going to make this? I'm asking you to crystal ball it."

"I really believe he will because he knows the consequences," the woman said.

Earlier, she had told the panel that she and the couple's children will leave if he continues drinking.

The panel was skeptical, however, and appeared to flatly disbelieve the man's claim that he has only ever driven drunk the two times he was caught.

"Do you know what the chances of that are?" Ember asked. "You've got to have the worst luck in the world."

"I do have bad luck," the motorcyclist replied.

"We're on the fence with what to do with you," Stedman told the man, deciding to defer the decision for a week.

The panelists also chose to ponder further the case of a 40-something DUI offender who said he hadn't had a drink since last December.

"I've destroyed a lot of opportunities for myself," said the man, who added that alcoholism has contributed to his being in and out of the legal system since he was 13.

Stedman told the man that he appreciated his honesty but added, "This is a tough sell for me."

The outcome was more positive for a tall, thin man who said he was unemployed and living in his car when he crashed it into a pole earlier this year.

Since then, he said, he has stopped drinking, moved into an apartment with his girlfriend and started a job as a custodian at a local hospital.

Stedman asked him how he would feel if a drunk would crash into a car carrying his young son.

"Hurt," the man said.

Flannery asked him how he could guarantee that this would be his last DUI.

"I gave up drinking, period," the man replied.

Despite concerns about charges of simple assault and harassment levied against the man in the early 2000s, the panel gave the man its nod.

But the jury of life is still out.

"The consequences of DUI can be horrendous," Stedman said.

As he told one of the defendants Monday, the prospect of an ARD participant committing another offense is the panel's worst nightmare.

"You crash into somebody and people burn to death in their car. We'll blame ourselves if we give you a break."