Search results for category: MADD

Some States Require Interlock Devices for First-Time DWI/DUI Offenders

< http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090102/DUI.Legislation.Ignition.Locks/>

            Beginning on January 1, 2009, motorists convicted of a first-time DWI or DUI in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska, and Washington will be required to put an ignition interlock device on their cars. An ignition interlock device is a small, portable breath test machine that is integrated into a car’s ignition system. A driver has to blow into the machine before starting the car, and again periodically while the car is running. If the machine reads a higher alcohol content than the preset cutoff, then the machine will interrupt the ignition and kill the motor.

Drivers in these states, upon conviction for DWI or DUI will have to have these devices installed, even for a first offense, and without regard to their BAC at the time of their arrest. They join the ranks of such states as New Mexico, Arizona, and Louisiana in requiring first-time DWI drivers to install interlock devices. Most of the other 50 states allow judges to exercise discretion in installing the device, and/or require it only for repeat offenders or for those who were well over the legal limit.

Texas mandates interlock devices for repeat offenders whose most recent DWI conviction happened within 5 years of the new DWI offense, but permits judges to use their discretion for first-time offenders and/or those whose prior DWI convictions were remote in time. If required, these drivers must keep such a device on their vehicles for one year after their license is reinstated following the mandatory suspension. Tex. Penal Code § 49.09(h).

            MADD, which has long pushed for these and other tougher measures for DWI drivers, recognizes that these devices are, in the words of David Malham of the Illinois Chapter, “amazingly inconvenient.” In Illinois, those who are required to place the interlock device on their cars will pay about $80 to install the device, an $80 monthly rental fee, and a $30 monthly surcharge to the State. MADD justifies this result by pointing out that 1 in 3 DWI defendants have a prior DWI or DUI conviction. But if repeat offenders are the concern, wouldn’t it make more sense to require interlocks for repeat offenders? Is it not obvious that, given this statistic, 2 out of 3 DWI defendants have never been convicted of DWI before?

            In fairness, it should be pointed out that these device requirements are not permanent, and the requirements in at least Washington, Illinois, and Colorado are attached directly to the automatic license suspension period upon conviction. In Illinois and Colorado, the requirement is a condition to obtaining a provisional license during the suspension period: no interlock, no driving privileges (and, in Colorado, a longer suspension period). In Washington, accepting an interlock device actually lifts the suspension, so long as the interlock is kept for the mandated period; if the interlock is refused by the defendant, the license suspension will take effect.

In Texas, we call this provisional license an Occupational License, and many judges do routinely require an interlock device as a condition, at least for the first 6 or 9 months to keep tabs on a defendant. Judges are required to condition the occupational license on getting an interlock device for certain repeat offenders. But that matter is left to the judge’s discretion for first offenders. Why? Because judges are generally in a better position than legislators to determine the appropriate safeguards that a specific defendant needs, or that society needs against a particular defendant. See Tex. Transp. Code § 521.246.

            Says Mr. Malham about the limited scope of the Illinois law (during the license suspension period only), “Perfection can’t be the enemy of the good.” Was he hoping for a lifetime requirement? To hear the CEO of MADD, Chuck Hurley, talk, it seems that’s exactly what they want: “Illinois has excellent law enforcement. But the judicial system leaks like a sieve. This law will change the catch and release system to one where people are at least caught and tagged.” Tagged? Tagged with a $110/month device for the rest of one’s life, because of one mistake made on one night, and without regard for how serious the individual’s misjudgment was—even though it’s a misdemeanor in every state in the Union. If that doesn’t scream justice, I don’t know what does.

Jordan Lewis

Houston, Texas Criminal Lawyer

Jordan Lewis is a prominent Houston, Texas DWI attorney.  Please contact Mr. Lewis at 713-222-0400 if you have any questions regarding your DWI arrest.

The officer, Charles Bebee, was arrested around midnight on May 3, 2007 in Aurora, Indiana.

According to police records, an officer noticed an SUV traveling at a high rate of speed.  Another motorist then made contact with an officer who eventually pulled the vehicle over for speeding.

According to the arresting officer’s report, Bebee failed field sobriety tests and was arrested for DWI.  After the arrest, Bebee had a blood alcohol concentration higher than the legal limit.

Bebee had previously been awarded as a “Top Cop” by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.