Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Sympo sium 1 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.”
36
Embed
Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium1 New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006.. “The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by associations of State.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 1
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.”
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 2
Reducing DWI With InterlocksThe New Mexico Experience
Minnesota Interlock SymposiumFebruary 22, 2007
Richard Roth, PhD
Research Consultant and Citizen Lobbyist
Supported by PIRE, RWJ, and NM TSB
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 3
An Ignition Interlock is anElectronic Probation Officer
• Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat
• On duty 24 hours per day
• Tests and Records daily BAC’s
• 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)
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 4
New Mexico Interlock Laws• 1999 Optional for 2nd and 3rd DWI.
• 2002 Mandatory for all Aggravated and Subsequent DWI. 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+
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 5
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.
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 6
Ignition Interlock Installation Rates Under Various Laws in NM
0
10002000
30004000
5000
60007000
8000
OptionalJudicial
Sanction for2nd and 3rd
DWI
Mandatoryfor 1st Agand Above
InterlockLicenseAvailable
Mandatoryfor All DWIConvictions
DWIConvictions
Inst
alla
tio
n R
ate
(per
yea
r) EstimateMy EstimateIn 2005 5688
So Far
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 7
Currently-Installed Interlocks per Million Residents by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 US Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth June 15, 2006
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500N
ew M
exic
o
Iow
a
Was
hin
gto
n
Mar
ylan
d
No
rth
Car
olin
a
Ari
zon
a
Co
lora
do
Okl
aho
ma
Vir
gin
ia
Uta
h
Ark
ansa
s
Mic
hig
an
Wes
t V
irg
inia
Tex
as
Ore
go
n
Mis
sou
ri
Idah
o
Flo
rid
a
So
uth
Dak
ota
Del
awar
e
Illin
ois
Oh
io
Pen
nsy
lvan
ia
Geo
rgia
Lo
uis
ian
a
How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization?
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 8
How many interlock licenses have been granted and
is the rate changing?
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 9
Interlock Licenses Issued by MVD 10,807 Issued by 11/8/2006; Rate in 2006 = 4999/yr
Data from MVD; Plot by Dr. Roth
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Jun
-03
Se
p-0
3
De
c-03
Ma
r-04
Jun
-04
Se
p-0
4
De
c-04
Ma
r-05
Jun
-05
Se
p-0
5
De
c-05
Ma
r-06
Jun
-06
Se
p-0
6
De
c-06
Ignition
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 10
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
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 11
Interlock Clients in New Mexico by Year and Reason For Installation
759 10261304
1117
1682
2162
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
2003 2004 2005
Year of Interlock Installation
Voluntary: Installedbefore conviction ormore than 90 days afterconviction
Mandated (Installedwithin 90 days after aConviction)
Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 12
Recidivism of Mandated Interlocked Offenders vs Comparison Group by Conviction Number
6.4%
8.1% 8.3%
2.6%3.2% 3.6%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
C# = 1 C# = 2 C# = 3
DWI Convictions Prior to Installation
Rea
rres
ted
wit
hin
1 y
ear
Comparison Groups(RED) Interlocked Groups(GREEN)
Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 13
Recidivism of Non-mandated Interlocked offenders vs Comparison Group by Arrest Number
9.1%
12.0%
1.5% 1.6%
3.6%
6.8%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
A# = 1 A# = 2 A# = 3+
DWI Arrests prior to Installation
% R
e-a
rre
ste
d w
ith
in 1
ye
ar
RED=Comparison Groups GREEN=Interlocked Groups
Effectiveness with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 14
Percent Re-arrested Within 1 Year of a DWI Conviction vs Year,by PriorsPlot by Dick Roth using Conviction and Arrest Data up to Jan 2006
DWI Arrest Trend in MinnesotaData from MN OTS; Plot by Dick Roth
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
What does this trend imply?
1. Bad News: More Drunk Driving?.... or
2. Good News: More Enforcement?
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 29
Statistics Proportional to Drunk DrivingData from MN OTS; Plot by Dick Roth
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Crashes
Injuries
Deaths X 10
What do these trends imply?
Good News: LESS DRUNK DRIVING
Or Safer Hiways…or Safer Cars….or More Seat Belt Use
DWI
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 30
Recommendations for MN
• Get Interlocks into the vehicles of all those arrested for DWI as soon as possible after arrest.
• Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of Alcohol-Free Driving for a significant period of time. Eg 1 year.
• Motivate those who do not drive Alcohol-Free to take advantage of Treatment.
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 31
Administrative vs. Judicial Interlock Programs
A Roundtable & Debate on Pros and Cons
Presenters:
Robert Voas, Ph.D. Richard Roth, Ph.D.
Participants:Jim Mosher, J.D. Ian Marples, LL.B. Jim Frank, Ph.D.
Robyn Robertson, M.A. Bill Rauch, D.A.
International Ignition Interlock Symposium,
October 22-24, 2006
With some revisions in YELLOW by Roth
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 32
Ideal Judicial Program1. Interlocks as a condition of probation for all
convicted offenders2. With electronic monitoring or periodic urine
tests as the only alternatives 3. Minimum of one year duration4. Compliance-Based-Removal: No recorded
BAC>0.05 for 6 months prior to Removal 5. Mandatory extra monitoring for the non-
compliant. eg.UAs, Sobrieters, or SCRAM6. Mandatory Treatment if indicated by #5.
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 33
JUDICIAL ADVANTAGES
• It is mandatory (if electronic monitoring, periodic urine tests, or jail are the only alternatives)
• It eliminates self-selection• It gets more interlocks installed per DWI. Eg over
35% of those arrested in NM. ._____________________________________
DISADVANTAGES• Applies only to those convicted (65%-85%)• Judicial Implementation Varies by judge• Installation is not immediate after arrest.
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 34
Ideal Administrative Program
Upon arrest DMV suspends under ALR but offers free interlock program
Upon conviction court orders electronic house arrest, or other electronic monitoring unless offender has installed interlock and begins to pay for it.
DWI fines raised to cover interlock costsCompliance based removal and referral to
treatment.
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 35
ADMINISTRATIVE
ADVANTAGES• Centralized authority and criteria• Prompt Installation after arrest• Allows changed offenders to drive legally• Applicable to all arrested DWI offenders.
DISADVANTAGES • Large self-selection component• Avoided by those who need it most• Doesn’t get many interlocks installed per DWI• Doesn’t reduce over-all recidivism by much. • Many more Administrative Appeal Hearings
Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 36
Legislative Recommendations1. Immobilization or Interlock between DWI
arrest and adjudication. 2. Mandatory Interlock for at least one year
for all convicted offenders with electronic monitoring or urine testing as the only alternatives.
3. Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC > .05 by any driver for a year.
4. Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation.
5. An Indigent Fund with objective standards.6. Mandatory Period of Interlock before