CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) RESOURCE CENTER Read More
Add To Favorites

Interlock or locked up: Anti-drunken driving advocates shift focus

St. Peter Herald - 1/25/2017

After decades of pushing for longer minimum sentences in Minnesota and across the country, anti-drunken driving advocates have shifted their focus from punishment to prevention.

"That is our biggest legislative push right now in the states," J.T. Griffin, chief government affairs officer with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said of ignition interlock devices.

The systems, which are installed on the vehicles of certain DWI offenders, require an offender to blow into a Breathalyzer-like device to start their vehicle. If the device detects alcohol above an established setting, the vehicle won't start. The device also requires the driver to provide additional samples to keep the car operating.

MADD supports using the devices for first-time offenders. Griffin said that other alternatives for treatment of a first-time offender exist, but the ignition interlock device is the best option.

"None work as well as the interlock device, the data is there," he said.

According to MADD "While suspending the license of these individuals makes sense, in reality, three out of four of those with a suspended license continue to drive, threatening the safety of you and your loved ones."

In 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration evaluated the effects of statewide ignition interlock system in New Mexico. That state passed its first ignition interlock law in 1999.

The study compared two groups of offenders, one who had interlock devices installed and one who had not. The researchers found that those with the device were 66 percent less likely to re-offend when the devices were attached to their vehicles. However, the study found there was little difference after the device was removed.

States that have introduced ignition interlock devices have reduced the number of DWI-related deaths by an average of 15 percent, Griffin said. Twenty-five states have mandatory ignition interlock laws. In Minnesota, the devices may be required as a condition of probation.

Ignition interlock issues

The interlock devices are far from a magic bullet, Griffin said. Deployment can pose a problem, because the devices sometimes aren't installed in a timely matter or at all.

The devices also have less than a 50 percent attach rate, meaning only about one-half of all drunken driving offenders nationwide have an interlock device attached to their vehicle. MADD wants to get that number to 100 percent, Griffin said.

"We want to get it on the offender's vehicle as soon as possible," Griffin said.

But research cited in a May 2015 National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationreport found that recidivism rates rebound once the devices are removed.

"Additional research is needed to investigate whether there are strategies for combining an interlock with other offender measures to produce longer-lasting reductions in impaired driving," it said.

The devices are particularly helpful for offenders who use their personal vehicle as their sole means of travel because it allows them to drive legally. Public transportation options are increasing across the region, but southern Minnesota residents have nowhere near the choices Twin Cities residents have.

The costs of the devices function as a double-edged sword. Griffin pointed out that offenders are required to pay for the device, which can save the state money, but opponents say that some offenders may not be able to afford to have the devices installed.

Intoxalock, a state-certified vendor of the devices, lists costs for offenders from $60 to $120 per month. There's also a fee to remove the device.

The other options often suggested to help quell drunken driving offenses are increasing mandatory minimum sentences, victim impact panels and DWI court. Griffin acknowledged the value of each.

"The impact panels give a way to spread the message about drunk driving," he said. "And it gives victims an opportunity to share their story."

DWI courts are typically for offenders on their second or third offense, he said. So MADD believes that requiring ignition interlock after one offense with a quick installation is the best method for avoiding repeat offenders.

Minnesota's solution

In 2001, the Minnesota Legislature passed the state's ignition interlock program. Managed by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, the program is provided as an option for first-time DWI offenders convicted of driving with an alcohol concentration about 0.16, twice the legal limit.

The number of devices on Minnesotan roads doubled from 2013 to 2015 from 5,276 to over 9,780, according to an email from DPS Office of Traffic Safety Director Donna Berger.

These numbers point to a shift in the culture of drunk driving that exists in Minnesota as well as other parts of the country. Berger writes that enforcement, awareness and laws have helped to change how the nation perceives drunk driving.

In Minnesota, a first-time offender has three options:

? a 15-day waiting period followed by a limited license to drive to work, school, treatment, abstinence-based support meetings, court and probation meetings for up to 60 hours per week, six days a week.

? a standard Class D license privileges, but with an ignition interlock device attached to the car.

? be rendered unable to drive for 90 days.

Second-time offenders can choose between an ignition interlock setup or losing their license for a year.

State Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Vernon Center, said the the state DWI Task Force is expected to bring recommendations to the House Public Safety and Security Policy and Finance Committee. Those may include requiring ignition interlock systems.

Cornish said he thought it would be unlikely that a mandatory ignition interlock proposal would be passed into law. Those looking for reforms in criminal rehabilitation may oppose the ignition interlock devices and more demanding minimum sentences for offenders in favor of improved treatment or improved rehabilitation.

However, Cornish disputes the cost argument, saying the cost of drinking may already strain offenders' budgets.

"If you can put down the habit, the rehab alone should save the money needed," he said.