Research Notes- Summer 1997
Clifford J. Helander and Leonard A. Marowitz
The California Department of Motor Vehicles recently obtained a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety to develop innovative alternative proposals for using ignition interlock devices (IID) as a DUI countermeasure. The proposals are being developed through meetings of a 20 member task force which includes representatives from the judiciary, law enforcement, departments of state government, the legislature, drinking driver treatment programs, the insurance industry, MADD and the ignition interlock industry. The task force will propose legislation incorporating the alternative interlock program and containing an evaluation of the effectiveness of the legislation.
The use of IIDs as a DUI countermeasure has slowly gained acceptance in California over the last 11 years. The Farr-Davis Driver Safety Act of 1986 authorized a pilot study in four California counties. In spite of the nonsignificant findings of the study, statewide use of IIDs was made discretionary by AB 2040 (Farr) in 1990. In 1993, AB 2851 (Friedman) led to the IID requirement being mandatory for all repeat DUI offenders and discretionary for DUI first offenders. Other legislation fine-tuned the law into its current form.
Although the IID requirement for repeat offenders is mandatory, judges have been reluctant to impose it, and in 1995 only about 14% of repeat offenders subject to the mandatory provisions were assigned to interlock. Three reasons are generally cited by judges when explaining their reluctance to impose IID sanctions. First, the current law contains contradictory and confusing provisions requiring concurrently that offenders have their driving privilege suspended and that vehicles driven by these offenders have IIDs installed. Second, the cost of IIDs (about $60 per month) is considered to be an undue hardship for many offenders, on top of fines well in excess of $1,000 that they are required to pay. Third, no conclusive studies have been performed on the effectiveness of IIDs in reducing DUI recidivism.
The task force, formally called the California Ignition Interlock Task Force, has met twice in two-day sessions. Members of the California Department of Motor Vehicles' Research and Development Branch led the meetings.
At the first meeting, held in Burlingame in October, the task force identified the top 10 problems with and potential solutions to current interlock program and legislation problems. The first ranked solution was to take the IID program out of the courts, where it is currently run, and make it administrative in nature, run by DMV. The three top ranked target DUI offender groups were all repeat offenders, all offenders who violate a DUI suspension or revocation, and first offenders with high BAC levels at arrest.
At the second meeting, held in San Diego in December, the conceptual design of a new IID program was discussed. Using the problems, solutions and offender target groups identified at the first meeting, considerable time was spent clarifying the administrative nature of the program. The task force concluded that:
- Second offenders under a post-conviction suspension action would be allowed to reinstate early with a restriction to interlock-installed vehicles.
- Courts would be given continued discretion in sanctioning first offenders to IIDs, but the law would specify that first offenders with BACs at arrest of 0.20% or greater, two or more traffic violations, or who refuse a chemical test of their BAC be considered strongly for IID sanctions.
- Offenders who are subsequently convicted of driving while suspended for DUI reasons would be subject to mandatory interlock.
- The IID sanction would be offender-based rather than vehicle-based. An IID would have to be installed on a vehicle owned by the offender, but if no vehicle was owned or it was subsequently sold and not replaced, the sanction would remain on the driver's record. The offender could then legally drive only other vehicles which had IIDs installed for the duration of the IID sanction.
- Much current judicial discretion and all procedural uncertainties were eliminated.
A subcommittee of the task force, consisting of members with experience in writing and reviewing legislation, met in Sacramento to review draft legislation. Copies of the draft were sent to the entire task force for review and comment. The draft legislative language was introduced on the floor of the Senate as SB 1115 (Lockyer), and is currently going through the hearing process. It is hoped that a new IID program will be enacted into law effective in 1998, and that an evaluation of the effectiveness of the new program would be completed as soon as possible.