|
|
How does an ignition interlock device work?
The
standard ignition interlock device is
an in-car breath screening apparatus
that requires the driver to pass a breath-alcohol test
before his motor vehicle will
start. Typically, it is located inside the passenger compartment, near the
drivers seat, and hard wired
to the engines ignition system. NHTSA standards
require that a minimum of 1.5 liters of breath be introduced through the mouthpiece and
run through
the instrument before the alcohol content is measured. Once the driver blows into a
mouthpiece, the device
will determine if his breath alcohol concentration (BrAC)
exceeds the pre-set limit of .05 BrAC or greater. If the drivers BrAC exceeds
the prohibited level; the ignition interlock will effectively prevent the vehicle from
being started.
Where will the ignition
interlock device be installed in the vehicle?

A concern for many people is where the device will be located when installed in their car
or truck. Typically, the interlock is mounted underneath the dash.
Installation will often be dictated by the style and interior design of the vehicle.
Is there more than one type or model of ignition interlock device?
There are several
manufacturers and models. Some ignition interlock devices implement a rolling
test. This means that after successfully starting the vehicle, some interlock models
may call on the driver to blow again after he has driven some distance or time.
Alcohol Countermeasure System's Interlock model WR2 (one of the devices approved for
use in Florida) is manufactured to require such a "rolling test" within a
randomly variable interval ranging from 5 to 30 minutes. The device is even capable of
multi-lingual display messages that request the driver's continued cooperation. This
"rolling test" feature is intended to thwart the driver from having someone else
blow into the device to get the vehicle started. ACS refers to this as prohibited
"curbside assistance." It is also intended to prevent the driver from consuming
alcohol while actually operating the motor vehicle.
What
happens if the ignition interlock device detects alcohol during a rolling test?
If a driver fails to
provide a breath sample or the drivers BrAC exceeds the pre-set limit during a
rolling test, the device will issue a warning (typically by sounding an alarm)
and record the event onto an internal computerized data log. Depending on the particular
model of ignition interlock installed, the device may activate specific alarm systems,
such as the flashing of the headlights or the honking of the horn until the vehicles
ignition is turned off. Under no circumstances will the ignition interlock device
completely shut down the vehicle. Nevertheless, the activated alarm systems are designed
to draw attention to the car and the driver.
Would anyone be able to
discover if my BrAC exceeded the pre-set limit?
Many versions of the ignition interlock device contain a computer chip that
records the date, time, and BrAC of the driver each time a breath sample is obtained.
Additionally, most models are capable of later producing a printout for authorities that
reflect this same information. These printouts can then be provided to the DHSMV,
probation officers, or Judges after the data is downloaded periodically. So, if a
driver with an ignition interlock device attempts to operate his vehicle after consuming
alcohol, it could presumably violate his probation and/or jeopardize his continued driving
privilege.
What kind of information is
recorded on the Data Log?
All ignition interlock systems have a device
that records breath test information. This data can then easily be downloaded
to access a great variety of information.
The data log tells the reader the time and dates that the driver attempted to start the
vehicle. It also provides corresponding breath test results. If there
was a rolling test, the data log will indicate the status of that test and
whether any further action was taken. For instance, if a breath test is not provided
during a rolling test, some interlock devices will flash the lights and honk
the horn. This information would then be recorded on the data log as well. Although
not all data logs record the same information they generally work the same way.
If there is an attempt to tamper with the interlock device it will show up on the data log
along with the time and date. The data logs can serve as incriminating evidence that
could form a basis for a violation of probation or termination of driving privileges. The
data log memory capacity of Alcohol Countermeasure System's model WR2 is 10,000 events.
The company indicates that this is typically enough to allow for normal use of the device
over a period of 67 days. If the log reaches 90% capacity, the device will activate a
service reminder. All data in the events log is recorded in an encrypted form. As a
result, downloading requires proprietary ACS software.
ACS and LifeSaver are required to perform monthly
maintenance and diagnostic routines on all installed interlock devices. They are also
required to maintain records of the pass/fail results. Within one business day of
performing this function they must report to DHSMV any evidence of the following events:
1. The altering, tampering, bypass, or
removal of the interlock device;
2. Failure of the participant to appear for a monitoring visit;
3. Any lockouts that occurred for a high BrAC, a BrAC failure, a retest failure, or
a power interruption;
4. Any indication of non-compliance, such as the participant's failure to submit to
a random or retest;
5. Data reflecting that the participant attempted to start the vehicle while under
the influence.
Click here to see an example of a data log printout.
Will
I be required to have an ignition interlock device installed on my car?
Florida Statutes
§316.193 mandates that upon conviction for DUI, the Court shall, in certain
circumstances, order the driver to have an ignition interloc k device installed prior to
their permanent or restricted drivers license reinstatement. It is the position of DHSMV
that the ignition interlock program officially began on July 1, 2003, but affects anyone
convicted of DUI after July 1, 2002.
The following
persons are subject
to the ignition interlock requirement:
·
After a 1st time DUI conviction
if the drivers breath or
blood alcohol level at the time of his original DUI offense registered a .20 or greater. F.S.
§316.193(4).
·
After a 1st time DUI conviction
if a person under 18 years of age
was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of the original DUI offense. F.S.
§316.193(4).
·
All multiple offenders seeking reinstatement. F.S.
§316.193(2)(a)(3).
Note: Pursuant to Florida Statutes
§316.1937, the Court still retains the discretion (not mandatory) to order the
installation of ignition interlock device for anyone convicted of DUI. Under such
circumstances, the Court also has the authority to then determine the length of time (so
long as not less than six months) the device is to be installed in the
persons motor vehicle(s). (However, it is anticipated that our Pinellas County
Judges will rarely require an interlock device outside of the above referenced mandatory
circumstances.)
Click here to read Attorney Frank Russo's article on the availability of: Hardship Licenses for Multiple Offenders.
Click here to read a comprehensive article on DUI
Hardship License Tips by: Attorney Frank Russo.
If you was arrested
for DUI between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005
but at the time of your sentencing,
the Judge
failed to order an ignition interlock... What are the ramifications?
Did you receive a
letter from DHSMV directing you to secure an interlock?
In January of 2004, the Chief of Floridas
DHSMVs Bureau of Driver Improvement, Division of Driver Licenses
(T.N. Prakash) and the Director of the Bureau of Records, Division of Driver
Licenses (Sandra C. Lambert) began a mass mailing of correspondence to
unsuspecting drivers. This DHSMV form-letter abruptly informed the drivers that unless
they promptly had an ignition interlock device installed in their vehicle, they could
anticipate the Departments cancellation of their driving privilege. In many cases,
these same drivers had already successfully served their court imposed probationary
sentences. Likewise, in many cases, the recipients of these letters had already had their
driving privileges fully reinstated.
The correspondence appears to follow through with the position taken by
the Department some months earlier in a DHSMV
memorandum drafted by Walter Castle and Barbara Lauer. That memorandum provided in
part: "The department will automatically impose the
minimum ignition interlock requirements on any person convicted of DUI since July 1,
2002." Later, on February
24,2004 the Department changed its position and said,
"The Department has determined that the DUI
offense date will be used instead of the conviction date." In other words, what the
Department appeared to be saying was that... even though the Judge may have failed to
order an ignition interlock at the time of your sentencing, we intend to nevertheless
require your compliance.
The question that presents itself is: If you were
arrested for DUI between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005 is DHSMV authorized under
Florida law to unilaterally impose the ignition interlock as a driving privilege
reinstatement prerequisite or even as a drivers license restriction, absent a court
order? Florida courts have answered that question saying "no." See:
Embrey v. Dickenson, Case No, 1D04-2985 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2005);
State of Florida, DHSMV v. Gonzalez-Zaila, Case Nos. 3D05-511, 3D04-2386
(Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 2005).
If you were convicted of DUI on or after July
1, 2005
but at the time of your sentencing,
the Judge
failed to order
an ignition interlock... What are the ramifications?
The Florida Legislature has recently enacted Florida Statute Section
322.2715(4) which provides that:
"If the court fails to order the mandatory placement of the ignition
interlock device or fails to order for the applicable period the
mandatory placement of an ignition interlock device under s. 316.193 or
s. 316.1937 at the time of imposing sentence or within 30 days
thereafter, the department shall immediately require that the ignition
interlock device be installed as provided in this section...This
subsection applies to the reinstatement of the driving p0rivilege
following a revocation, suspension, or cancellation that is based upon a
conviction for the offense of driving under the influence which occurs
on or after July 1, 2005."
Therefore, if you were convicted of DUI after July 1, 2005 but at the
time of your sentencing the judge failed to order an interlock, the
DHSMV will require your compliance.
What if I decide not to have an Ignition Interlock installed in my vehicle?

If your DUI conviction mandates an Ignition Interlock installation (Certain first
time offenders & all multiple offenders) then DHSMV will never reinstate your
privilege to drive until such time as you show compliance.
Your problem can not be resolved by simply waiting out your full period of suspension
prior to making application for your drivers license reinstatement. Unless and until you
show supporting documentation that confirms installation of an approved Interlock device,
you will not be eligible for drivers license reinstatement on either a restricted
(hardship license) or fully reinstated (unrestricted) basis.
In the vast majority of cases, installation of an Interlock device is not a condition of
probation, but rather a necessary prerequisite to drivers license reinstatement.
Therefore, although a person might successfully serve out their probationary sentence
without having first secured an Ignition Interlock, their failure to have the device
installed will nevertheless forever preclude their ability to lawfully operate a motor
vehicle.
"Just because the law requires installation of the device, does not mean that
everybody is going to comply." - Attorney Frank Russo,
St. Petersburg Times, "Car Lock Will Stall Drunken Drivers" December 17, 2003
If I
have an Ignition Interlock installed in my car to qualify for my license reinstatement,
but I am later caught by the police driving another vehicle that is not properly equipped with such a device, what are the
ramifications?
When you have your privilege to drive reinstated after an Ignition Interlock
installation, the front side of your Florida Drivers License will reflect a
P restriction.
See the back of your Drivers License which outlines various restrictions that can be
placed on your privilege to drive, such as, corrective
lenses, business purposes only, or Ignition Interlock.
Stated
simply
it is a criminal offense if you operate a motor vehicle in violation of your
drivers license restriction. You are subject to immediate arrest and the possible
impoundment of your car. A conviction in court for this offense includes penalties that
may entail fines, probation or incarceration within the county jail. (Florida Statute Section 322.273) Consequences
likewise include the revocation of your privilege to drive. In other words, if the
Department determines that you abused your restricted driving privilege, by getting caught
operating a vehicle that was not properly equipped with an Interlock device, they will
more than likely revoke your driving privilege.
Our office represents a large number of clients who come to
us charged with a "violation of their drivers license restriction."

In some cases, we are able to avoid convictions for this offense through plea negotiations
with the State Attorneys Office. There are other times when we can raise defenses
associated with the illegality of the initial traffic stop of our clients vehicle.
Even in the worst of circumstances, we might urge the Judge to impose a particular
sentence, but at the same time, withhold the
formal adjudication of guilt, that would otherwise cause your restricted license
to become revoked.
If you are arrested or charged in Pinellas County
with the offense of Violation of Drivers License Restriction, you should call
our office for a free consultation. (727) 578-0303 We can discuss the facts of your case
and the options you may have. Our office well understands that the primary objective of
most clients is for their attorney to make every effort to secure a final outcome in their
court case that will:
1.
Not jeopardize their employment; and
2.
Enable them to continue to lawfully operate their motor vehicle.
Who will pay for the cost of
installing and maintaining an ignition interlock device in my vehicle?
As
with most DHSMV provisions, the driver is the one who will bear the cost of installing and
maintaining an ignition interlock device. The cost for installation is $70.00. This
amount includes the technician's service to remove the unit from your vehicle at the end
of your prescribed period. There could be an additional installation surcharge of $50.00
if your car is a high performance model, a luxury vehicle or a large truck that
necessitates additional time and effort during the installation process. Monthly
monitoring and calibration fees are $67.50.
What if I cannot afford to pay for an ignition interlock device?
When enacting ignition interlock
legislation, Florida lawmakers recognized the high cost associated with these
devices. In an effort to make ignition interlocks more affordable, Florida
Statute §316.1937(2)(d), has a provision written into it that may provide some
relief. The court can make an inquiry as to whether the defendant in fact cannot
afford the cost of the ignition interlock system. If the court determines that the
person truly cannot afford these costs, then the Judge has the authority to order that any
standardized fines otherwise associated with the DUI offense be allocated to defray the
costs of installation. Essentially, a portion of the fines and court costs
that the defendant would normally pay might be used toward the expenses associated with
the installation and maintenance of this device.
How long will I be required to have an ignition interlock
device installed in my car?

For a first time DUI conviction, (where there was a .20 BrAC or
greater, or in the alternative, the defendant had a passenger in his vehicle under
eighteen years of age), the court shall for a period of up to six months, order the
installation of an ignition interlock device at the Defendants sole expense on all
vehicles in the Defendants name or in joint name with another person, at the time he
qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. Florida Statute §316.193(4)(c). Note: The legislature
inadvertently failed to set any minimal length of time for first time offenders. Because no minimum
time period is specified in the law for individuals convicted of this "enhanced"
first time DUI offense, the Judge has the discretion to order that the interlock be
installed for a time period of as little as one day.
For a second conviction the
interlock device must be installed at the Defendants sole expense on all vehicles in
the Defendants name or in joint name with another person, at the time he qualifies
for a permanent or restricted license, for a period of at least one year. F.S.
§316.193(3).
For a second conviction (where there was a .20 BrAC or greater
or in the alternative the defendant had a passenger in his vehicle under eighteen years of
age), the interlock device must be installed at the Defendants sole expense on all
vehicles in the Defendants name or in joint name with another person, at the time he
qualifies for a permanent or restricted license, for a period of at least two years. F.S.
§316.193(4)(c).
Upon a third conviction within 10 years of any prior conviction, the court shall for a period of not
less than two years order the installation of an ignition interlock device at the
Defendants sole expense on all vehicles in the Defendants name or in joint
name with another person, at the time he qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. F.S.
§316.193(2)(b)(1).
Upon a third conviction outside of ten years of any prior conviction, the court shall for a period of not
less than two years order the installation of an ignition interlock device at the
Defendants sole expense on all vehicles in the Defendants name or in joint
name with another person, at the time he qualifies for a permanent or restricted license. F.S. §316.193(2).
Why did the Legislature pass mandatory ignition interlock laws?
There is a strong
argument that can be made that the use of an ignition interlock device greatly reduces the
risk of recidivism (See next FAQ). Thus, greater safety on our highways was obviously a
motivating force behind these new laws. However, an investigation by our office revealed
the following three factors we believe may have greatly
contributed to the passage of Floridas Ignition Interlock legislation.

#1. Florida wanted to avoid losing
valuable Federal-Aid Highway Funds.
In 1998, the
United States Federal government passed the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st
Century (TEA-21). This act directed states to pass particular DUI legislation
directed at drivers with more than one DUI or face the loss of Federal-Aid Highway
Funds. A subsequent modification of TEA-21 occurred through the TEA-21
Restoration Act. Section 164 of this later legislation specifically directed
states to require ignition interlock devices. Accordingly, those states without
ignition interlock laws stand to lose a portion of their Federal-Aid Highway funds.
· 
#2. Strong lobbying efforts on the part
of the ignition interlock industry.
Mandatory ignition interlock devices in
Florida represent a great opportunity for those businesses that employ this unique
trade. See: New
drunk law spawns biz opportunities. Business Weekly. August 9,
2002 American Business Journals Inc.
Ignition interlock vendors were required to submit proposals. Thereafter, a
labor-intensive process took place in Tallassee that included demonstrations, public
meetings and a review of technical and price considerations.
It is interesting to note that
after passage of the initial legislation (effective 7/1/03), continued lobbying efforts
took place that sought additional new interlock laws (House Bill 1199 & Senate Bill
2612.) If passed, this added legislation would have extended the imposition date to
10/1/03. However, these same efforts also sought a broader statutory scheme that would
have required interlock devices pursuant to the general penalty statute under section
316.655 (not just for DUI offenses). The proposed legislation also sought to lower the
enhanced 1st time DUI offender's BAC level from the current .20 to only a .16 before an
interlock would otherwise be required.
The House and Senate bills died on 5/2/03. Nevertheless, the proposed legislation appears
to reveal a lobbying effort designed to make the Florida ignition interlock business more
financially lucrative. If the bills had passed, vendors would have been afforded the
luxury of greater time to establish installation sites throughout Florida. Better still,
they would have received the benefit of legislation calculated to greatly increase the
potential number of motorists who would have otherwise been required to pay for the costs
associated with installation and maintenance of their machines.

#3. Public recognition of both
Senators and Representatives
Any positive recognition is deemed
beneficial to those hopeful to remain in public office. Such is the case when on
June 11, 2002, the Hillsborough County Florida Chapter of MADD publicly honored Senator
Locke Burt, Representative David Simmons, and Representative Johnnie Byrd for sponsoring
the bill that enacted Floridas new ignition interlock legislation. One
publication we reviewed speculated that the media probably required wide angle lenses to
photograph Governor Bush (and the numerous supporters of the bill) when the
Governor actually signed the ignition interlock legislation into law.
Is the ignition interlock device effective in reducing DUI offenses?
The
Natio nal Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
found that there is clear evidence that the ignition interlock device, installed in the
offenders vehicle, is substantially more effective than license suspension in
deterring DUI recidivism. It also found a direct correlation between the amount of time
the device was required in the vehicle and the number of times the driver was re-arrested
for a new DUI offense.
The American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol abuse published a n extensive study entitled Blow and Go: The Breath
Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as a Technological Response to DUI, Volume 29,
Issue 1. This 3-year recidivism study of the ignition interlock revealed 17.5%
recidivism rates for the interlock group compared to 25.3% recidivism rates for the
non-interlock group, a 31% decrease. Multiple offenders and younger (under 30 years of
age) offenders had significantly lower rates of subsequent arrests. The multi-offenders in
the comparison group were more than twice as likely as the interlock group to have a
subsequent conviction within 3 years. The difference was nearly the same for the under 30
age group. There was almost no difference for first offenders.
T he International Council on Alcohol Drugs
and Traffic Safety likewise published a position paper in July of 2001 on this
subject. Their study concluded that breath alcohol ignition interlock devices, when
embedded in a comprehensive monitoring and service program lead to 40-95% reductions in
the rate of repeat DWI offenses of convicted DWI offenders.
The University of Maryland, in its 1997
report entitled The Effects of Alcohol Ignition Interlock License Restrictions on
Multiple Alcohol Offenders: A Randomized Trial in Maryland also addressed
the issue of recidivism rates among ignition interlock users. For the study,
Maryland researchers randomly assigned a group of over 1,300 repeat DUI offenders to
either continue alcohol treatment or treatment coupled with an interlock program.
After a year, the study concluded that only 2.4 percent of those in the interlock program
committed an alcohol related offense. The violation rate of the group not using the
ignition interlock devices was 6.7 percent, almost 3 times as high as the other
group. One of the Maryland researchers commented that being in the interlock program
reduced the risk of committing an alcohol related offense in the first year by about 65
percent.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that attaching an interlock to a car for a year after its operator is convicted of
driving while intoxicated would reduce recidivism by an estimated 75% and alcohol-related
fatalities by 7%.
Has
the legality of mandatory ignition interlock devices been challenged in Court?
Numerous states already require ignition
interlock devices for DUI offenders. Over the years the constitutionality of such
laws have been challenged before the courts. For instance, on March 6, 2002 the
Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a lower courts ruling that ignition
interlock devices do not violate
equal protection. Requiring such devices to promote public safety was found by the
Court to be reasonably related to keeping intoxicated drivers of the
road. Commonwealth v. Etheredge, 794 A.2d 391, (PA Super, 2002).
Are
there ways to violate Floridas ignition interlock laws?
If you have an ignition interlock device
installed in your vehicle, it is clearly unlawful to tamper with the device. Florida
Statute §316.1937(6)(a). It is also a violation of the law to have someone else blow
into it for the purpose of starting the vehicle. In fact, merely
requesting or soliciting someone else to blow into the device is a
violation of Florida law. Florida Statute §316.1937(6)(b).
It is also a criminal offense if you blow into an ignition
interlock device for someone else for the purpose of starting their vehicle. F.S. §1937(6)(c).
Likewise, it is against the law to simply lend your unequipped vehicle to someone whom you
know is operating under an ignition interlock restriction. F.S. §1937(6)(d).
What if I am required to drive my employers vehicle at work, will I need to
get an ignition interlock installed on the company vehicle?
Florida ignition interlock legislation
has a statutory provision that allows people in these limited situations to drive without the necessity of installing
an ignition interlock device on a company vehicle. However, in order to take
advantage of this employee exemption the driver must satisfy two requirements.
First, that the owner (Company/Employer) be notified of the restriction. Second,
that the business entity, which owns the vehicle, must not be owned or controlled by the
same person whose driving privileges has been so restricted. If these conditions are met,
the driver must carry an affidavit from the employer attesting to proof of the
notification and employment nature of the vehicle. Florida Statute §316.1937(7).
What are some of the problems associated with ignition
interlock devices?
An ignition interlock device may be viewed as inconvenient or
embarrassing to a driver convicted of DUI. However, according to the National
Commission Against Drunk Driving, they can also present a host of potential
problems.
·
They may present false positives because of the presence of mouth alcohol;
·
They may take too long in verifying results;
·
They cannot identify who blows into the instrument;
·
The cost may be prohibitive to some offenders.
Can an ignition interlock device be Cheated
or By-Passed?
Ever since ignition interlock devices were introduced, there
have been motorists who have attempted to cheat the system into believing that the driver
is under the pre-set limit required to start the vehicle.
Some offenders have solicited friends or relatives to blow into the ignition
interlock. Other drivers implemented methods utilizing stored clean
breath samples (within balloons). In the alternative, homemade filtration devices
were employed in an effort to remove incriminating alcohol from the breath sample prior to
it entering the interlock breath tube.
Ignition
interlock manufacturers continue to modify and improve their products to thwart such
efforts. Control modules are hardwired to the vehicle in a tamper resistant fashion.
Likewise, most machines now require a
breath pressure in excess of that afforded by a balloon. The WR2 for example, has several
features designed to screen out bogus breath samples. One of these features, called "humtone
recognition", involves having the driver blow continuously for three seconds,
then adding a "hum" to the blow for the balance of the test. The entire sample
must be provided without any interruption to the flow of air. This requirement is designed
to confirm that the sample is being legitimately produced by a human being and not
through a mechanical or otherwise alternative artificial source. One
manufacturer even claims that a voice recognition system built into their interlock
prevents offenders from cheating the system by having someone else blow into the
machine.
ACS
standard installation procedures incorporate other tamper resistant features. These
include:
1. The soldering of all wire connections;
2. The use of tamper-proof screws;
3. Heat shrink material that covers all connections with proprietary printing;
4. Proprietary sensing systems designed to reject bogus breath samples and to
uncover filtered or disguised breath test samples;
5. Recordation of any time that power to the unit was disconnected or interrupted;
6. The use of a tachometer signal to determine if the engine is running. (Not
voltage sources, air lines, or alternator signals.);
A warning label is even affixed to each device that reads: "Any person tampering,
circumventing or otherwise misusing this ignition interlock system is guilty of a
violation of law and may be subject to civil liability."
Alcohol Countermeasure Systems has contractually agreed with the Florida DHSMV to perform
their work in such a manner that the customer or any other unauthorized personnel are
prohibited from even watching the installation, servicing, or downloading of information
from the data log. They have also agreed to ensure that unauthorized personnel cannot
gain access to secure parts and materials. (Statement of
qualifications and services offered ITN number 023-03 Ignition Interlock Device Program,
Alcohol Countermeasure Systems Corp. Paragraph 5.1.4 Services and monitoring requirements
subsections (m), (o), and (q).)
DHSMV
is apparently so concerned about any breach in the integrity of the ignition interlock
program that they have insisted that all installers and personnel working at the service
centers submit to both a criminal record and drivers license background check. DHSMV
reserves the right to reject for use in the project any employee of ACS or LifeSavers (and
their subcontractors) who have a criminal record.
Which states have legislation requiring ignition
interlock devices?
Warning: Due to frequent
changes in this area of the law and the increasing popularity of
ignition interlock legislation around the country, you should not rely
solely upon this website in determining whether your state requires the
use of this device upon a conviction for DUI. For the most
up-to-date and accurate information, consult a local attorney trained
and experienced in the area of DUI Defense.
43 states currently
have laws providing for the use of ignition interlock devices for drivers convicted of
DUI. These states include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Delaware, FLORIDA, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas,
Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
How has the state of New Mexico impacted Interlock Legislation?
New Mexico has been struggling for years with alcohol related
crashes. It had the sixth highest rate in the nation for alcohol-related
highway deaths in 2003. In that year alone, there were 213 fatalities
and 3,500 alcohol-involved crashes.
Given this problem, New Mexico has clearly led the nation with Ignition
Interlock legislation. Approximately 2,600 offenders a year have been
ordered by the New Mexico courts to get an interlock device. As such,
New Mexico has more Interlocks currently installed per capita than any
where else in the country.
And that number is set to increase dramatically. All convicted drunken
drivers — nearly 13,000 annually — will be required to get interlocks
under a new law Gov. Bill Richardson recently signed.
Because of this radical legislation, New Mexico is the first state to require that everyone convicted of DUI be
required to install an Ignition Interlock device in their vehicle.
Upon signing the new bill into law, the Governor stated:
|
"We will never again be criticized for doing too little
about DWI. New Mexico now has the most comprehensive
Ignition Interlock law in the world." |

Seated at the microphone is New Mexico’s Governor Bill
Richardson.
The Governor’s strong endorsement of Ignition Interlock devices has
resulted in New Mexico being at the forefront of Interlock legislation.
New Mexico represents the first state to insist on Ignition Interlocks
for everyone convicted of DUI.
On February 16, 2004 the New Mexico House of Representatives passed
a bill that would h ave required every new car sold in that state to be equipped
with an ignition interlock device by 2008 and every used car by 2009. Democrat, W.
Ken Martinez introduced House
Bill 126 during the legislature's second session of 2004. The requirement applied
to all passenger vehicles, including automobiles, pickup trucks or vans normally used for
personal, family or household purposes, that are sold and registered in New Mexico; and
whose gross vehicle weight is less than ten thousand pounds. The governor of that state,
Bill Richardson called the bill "an innovative concept" that he'd seriously
consider. However, the controversial measure failed to make it out of a Senate committee
and subsequently died before reaching the floor of the Senate. The New Mexico legislation
had been promoted as a shift in ideology from punishment to prevention.

Rep. W. Ken
Martinez,
New Mexico, D-District 69
Wanted "every" car sold in his
state to have an ignition
interlock device.

But, in a bit of irony, only hours after
a
bill-signing ceremony to highlight
that state's newest efforts to crack down
on DUI offenders...
fellow New Mexico
Republican and House minority whip
Joe Thompson was arrested for DUI.
Other Ignition Interlock
News
May, 2005 - Ignition Interlock Prerequisite to Bail?
The Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice for the State of
Louisiana voted 11-2 for House Bill 692 by Rep. Ernest Wooton, D-Belle
Chasse, sending it to the House floor for debate. The bill would
require that judges be required to order an ignition interlock device
installed on all the vehicles driven by a person arrested on second time
DUI offense as a condition of bail.
May, 2005 - Steering Wheel Interlock Device
The U.S. Patent Office awarded a patent to Fort Lauderdale inventor
Dennis Bellehumeur who created a steering wheel that tests the
perspiration and body temperature of the skin to detect if a person has
been drinking. If the device embedded in the steering wheel
determines that the driver's alcohol level is over the legal limit, the
car will not start. Dr. Bellehmeur has been working on perfecting
the gadget since his son was injured in a drunk driving accident nearly
twelve years ago.
June,
2005 - Man Convicted of Tampering with Interlock
A Bucks County, Pennsylvania man was convicted of tampering with an
ignition interlock device after police found that he had loaded an an
air compressor into his vehicle and
taped the air hose to his interlock mouthpiece. Chief Deputy
District Attorney Karen Diaz told the media that the man had a second
back-up air compressor in his trunk. The driver was likewise
convicted of his fourth time DUI offense, but told the court, that he
had never intended to drink and drive. Judge Albert J. Cepparulo
responded to the assertion by saying, "You weren't intending on
drinking, and you just happened to have a compressor in the trunk?" The
Defendant received two years incarceration and a fine of $3,800.00.
January, 2007
-
Toyota Developing Drunk Driving
Prevention System
Toyota Motor Corporation announced that it is developing a
"fail-safe" system for cars that
detects drunk drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if
sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption. Cars
fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the
steering wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's
bloodstream. The system could also activate if sensors detect
abnormal steering, or a built-in camera shows that the driver's pupils
are out of focus. The world's number 2 automaker hopes to fit cars
with this system by the end of 2009. Nissan Motor Corp. announced
that it too was experimenting with breathalyzer like devices for
installation in their automobiles.
If I am required to have an ignition interlock installed in my vehicle...where do I go in
Pinellas or Hillsborough County for this service?
Appointments for
installation in Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties are secured by first calling the
central customer service center at:
(407) 207-3337.
The Pinellas and Hillsborough County
installation centers are displayed below:
 |
 |
Largo Location
Interlock Systems of Florida
Live Oaks Center
9225 Ulmerton Road, Suite Q
Largo, FLorida |
Tampa Location
Interlock Systems of Florida
56th Commerce Center
5434 56th Commerce Park Blvd.
Tampa, Florida |
Other
Southern Region Installation locations
ORLANDO

INTERLOCK
SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA.
Inc.
5852 South Semoran Blvd
Orlando, FL 32822-4816
PALM BEACH

INTERLOCK
SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA. Inc.
3599 23rd Avenue South, Bay 7
Lake Worth, FL 33461
FORT LAUDERDALE

INTERLOCK SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA. Inc.
3774 NW 16th Street
Lauderhill, FL 33311
MIAMI

INTERLOCK SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA. Inc.
13208 SW 131st Street
Miami, FL 33186
FORT MYERS

INTERLOCK SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA. Inc.
13850 Treeline Avenue South, Suite 3
Fort Myers, FL 33913
THE KEYS

INTERLOCK SYSTEMS OF FLORIDA. Inc.
12693A Overseas Highway
Marathon, FL 33050
For a
Northern Region Installation:
Visit: LifeSavers Interlock, Inc.
What
can I expect the installation process to entail?
The installation process generally takes a couple of hours. It also
includes training in the use of the device for participants and for those interested
family members who may also operate the Interlock equipped vehicle.

A service representative will teach you
how to operate your Interlock device with
a demonstration unit. You will also watch
a helpful video presentation.
This Website Courtesy of:
Russo & Russo, P.A. - Pinellas County DUI
and Criminal Defense
Russo & Russo, PA
Attorneys at Law
Our Primary Office Location:
Corner of 9th Street N. & Gandy Blvd.
877 Executive Center Drive West
Suite #112
St. Petersburg, FL 33702
(727) 578-0303
Free Consultations
Consultations also available at:
Ulmerton Road and 58th Street North
The Summit Building
Clearwater, Florida 33760 |
Visit the
Russo & Russo web site at: http://www.defensehelp.com
The site represents one of the most comprehensive
Internet sources of information on Florida DUI and criminal defense topics. You can learn
about multiple offender hardship licenses, tips on avoiding an arrest for violation of a
drivers license restriction, various penalties and possible solutions related to DUI and
other criminal defense matters.
|
|