Reducing DWI With Interlocks The New Mexico Experience

1
Reducing DWI With InterlocksThe New Mexico
Experience
Richard Roth, Robert Voas, Paul Marques Supported
by PIRE, NHTSA, and NM TSB

• 8th Ignition Interlock Symposium
• August 26-7, 2007

2
New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006

• .. The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by
  associations of State highway officials and car
  manufacturers, is to have all states do what New
  Mexico has already done require that all
  convicted drunken drivers, even first-time
  offenders, have devices installed in their cars
  that measure alcohol in the breath and
  immobilized the car if levels exceed set limits.

3
An Ignition Interlock is anElectronic Probation
Officer

• Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat
• On duty 24 hours per day
• Tests and Records daily BACs
• Allows only Alcohol-Free Persons to Drive.
• Reports All Violations to the Court
• Costs Offender only 2.30 per day.
  (1 less drink per day)

4
New Mexico Interlock Laws

• 1999 Optional for 2nd and 3rd DWI.
• 2002 Mandatory for all Aggravated and Subsequent
  DWIs. Indigent Fund
• 2003 Ignition Interlock License Act
  .an alternative to revocation.
• 2005 Mandatory Interlocks for all DWIs
  1yr for 1st 2 for 2nd 3 for 3rd Lifetime
  for 4

5
NM Interlock RegulationsNM DOThttp//ipl.unm.edu
/traf/rules/interlockrules.doc

• Objective To implement Interlock Laws
• Licensing of manufacturers, service centers,
  operators, and installers
• Device standards recording requirements
• Installation, servicing, and removal.
• Record keeping and reporting requirements

6
Interlocks are Effective, Cost-Effective and Fair

• Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40-90
• They reduce the economic impact of drunk driving
  by 3 to 7 for every 1 of cost.
• Interlocks are perceived as a fair sanction by
  85 of over 5000 offenders surveyed.
• ..But they only work if
• you get them installed.

7
(No Transcript)
8
How does New Mexico compare with other states in
interlock utilization?
9
Do Interlocked Offenders have a Lower Re-Arrest
Rate?

• Court Mandated Installations of Interlocks.
  --Selected as installations
  within 90 days after conviction. N 3089
• Voluntary Installations.
  --Selected as all others. N 4961

10
Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations
11
Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders
Comparison Groups(RED) Interlocked
Groups(GREEN)
12
Effectiveness with Volunteers
ie. Not court-mandated
REDComparison Groups GREENInterlocked
Groups
13
Cravens Crash
Ignition Interlock Law
Down 36
Down 30
14
Statewide recidivism decreased.
8.0 Before
6.7 After
A 16 Reduction
15
Before
After
8.7 Before
6.2 After
A 29 Reduction
16
(No Transcript)
17
Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and
Fatalities
18
(No Transcript)
19
Survey of Interlocked Offenders
N 796
77
81
63
69
20
January to September 2006
21
Interlocks Installed Per Conviction in First 9
months of 2006
Caution this figure includes installations by
persons not convicted, and changes of provider.
22
Interlocks Installed per DWI Arrest by County in
NM
Jan-Sept 2006
Caution Includes some changes of Provider.
Room for Improvement
23
(No Transcript)
24
Proposals to Close NM Loopholes

• Add or electronic monitoring for No car.
• Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked
  without an interlock.
• Vehicle Immobilization or Interlock between
  arrest and adjudication.
• Crime to contribute to circumvention.
• Apply interlock sanction to juvenile offenders.
• Mandate a period of alcohol-free DRIVING before
  getting unrestricted license.

25
Legislative Recommendations

• Immobilization or Interlock between DWI arrest
  and adjudication.
• Mandatory Interlock for at least one year for all
  convicted offenders with electronic monitoring or
  urine testing as the only alternatives.
• Compliance Based Removal. Requirement No
  recorded BAC gt .05 by any driver for a year.
• Interlock License as an Alternative to
  Revocation.
• An Indigent Fund with objective standards.
• Mandatory Period of Interlock before Unrestricted
  License Reinstatement.