The new $500 billion highway bill currently working it’s way through the legislative process has a new requirement for the states: mandatory ignition interlock devices for anyone convicted of even a first offense drunk driving charge. According to The Hill, this mandate would withhold federal transportation funding to any states that don’t comply with this requirement.
A nationwide ignition interlock requirement has been a pet project of MADD for years. Others including civil liberties groups believe that these mandates are extreme, and tie a judge’s hands to reach a reasonable conclusion. These devices have a number of reliability problems, and unfairly punish people who can’t mount a effective legal defense without losing their jobs (see below).
What is an Ignition Interlock Device?
An ignition interlock is a dashboard mounted device, about the size of a mobile phone. It locks out the ability to turn on a car’s ignition unless it received a “clean” breath sample, without any alcohol detected. Essentially, it is a rolling breathalyzer in your automobile.
Currently nine states require the interlock device for all convicted first time drunk driving offenders. Seven states require the devices after a high level BAC result (typically designated as a “Extreme DUI” with a .15% BAC, or nearly twice the legal limit of .08%). And three other states have an IID requirement after a second or subsequent DUI convictions. Other states have interlock laws at a judge’s discretion, but no strict mandate.
Why is a 1st Offense DUI Ignition Interlock Requirement a Bad Idea?
It is an extreme and burdensome penalty, and punishes working-class people the most.
The fact is, with how our system is set up, a person really isn’t innocent until proven guilty when it comes to drunk driving charges. If you are merely arrested for a drunk driving offense, you immediately lose your driver’s license in almost all cases. Even though your case hasn’t been heard, and no judge or jury has evaluated your innocence.
Many people who might otherwise have a legitimate legal defense simple plead guilty to DUI charges if it gives them a chance to get their driver’s license back quickly. Most people simple can’t afford to not drive for six months or more while a case works it’s way through the courts. Being found not guilty of DUI charges is not worth the cost of possible losing your job and your house in the process, if you can’t get to work.
What is a reasonable alternative?
Most people agree that a 2nd offense interlock requirement, or one based on a high BAC level is fair. If a person is found guilty and has prior convictions, or was found guilty of driving with nearly twice the legal limit or alcohol or more – it is reasonble to conclude that such a person either has a drinking problem, and/or doesn’t take drunk driving laws seriously. And such people may be a real danger to public safety.
But the borderline cases are why we have judges in the first place – to make judgements. We should let these cases be evaluated on the merits and specific circumstances of the situation.
No related posts.
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
What about people who have a bad reaction to medication? I did. Thank God, all I did was flatten my own tire. I have to get this device. I am trying to get on line insurance quotes and my choices are, drunk with injury or drunk without injury. I wasn’t drinking! How will blowing into this thing tell anything about my reaction to meds? Oh well the judge said he had nothing to do with it, it’s Arizona law.
Very good point.
Anytime you have laws and penalties that are mandatory and “one size fits all”, you are going to end up with a lot of cases that don’t make any sense, like yours.
“Judicial discretion” isn’t code for letting criminals walk, it’s about helping the system make sense, and be fair to all. It is a shame that we seem to trust judges to judge less and less.
Best of luck to you.