Frank Russo
Attorney at Law
Free Consultations
(727) 578-0303
 

Defending Clients 
Charged with:

• DUI

• Driving While License Suspended or Revoked

• Violation of Drivers License Restrictions

All Felony and Misdemeanor Offenses

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 driver’s seat, and hard wired
to the engine’s 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 driver’s 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 driver’s 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 vehicle’s 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 interlock 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 driver’s 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 person’s 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  Florida’s DHSMV’s “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 Department’s 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 Attorney’s Office. There are other times when we can raise defenses associated with the illegality of the initial traffic stop of our client’s 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 Defendant’s sole expense on all vehicles in the Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s sole expense on all vehicles in the Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s sole expense on all vehicles in the Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s sole expense on all vehicles in the Defendant’s 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 Defendant’s sole expense on all vehicles in the Defendant’s 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 Florida’s 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 21^st 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 Florida’s 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 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism  
found that there is clear evidence that the ignition interlock device, installed in the offender’s 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 an 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.

The 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 it’s 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 court’s 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 Florida’s 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 employer’s 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 limitedsituations 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:

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 have 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