interlocks in new mexico l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Interlocks in New Mexico PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Interlocks in New Mexico

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 35
calla

Interlocks in New Mexico - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

199 Views
Download Presentation
Interlocks in New Mexico
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Interlocks in New Mexico Richard Roth, PhD Executive Director, Impact DWI Citizen Lobbyist and Research Consultant Supported by PIRE, NHTSA, RWJ, and NM TSB RichardRoth2300@msn.com, 471-4764, www.impactdwi.org MADD DWI Technology Symposium, June 2006

  2. 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) MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  3. 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 3000 offenders surveyed. • ..But they only work if you get them installed. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  4. Does an Interlock Law or Program Reduce DWI Re-Arrests? • Yes, if interlocks get installed. • No, if interlocks do not get installed. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  5. Motivation Continuum For DWI Offenders to Install InterlocksUnder Existing and Possible Laws • From Incentives to Mandates • From Carrots to Sticks MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  6. CarrotsLegal Driving Privileges • Early license reinstatement • License reinstatement requirement. • How soon after arrest? MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  7. Sticks: Judicial Mandates • Optional or Mandatory • Some or All offenders • To avoid immobilization, impoundment or forfeiture of vehicle on arrest • To avoid house arrest, warrant, or jail on conviction MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  8. 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+ MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  9. Estimate MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  10. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  11. 19631 DWI Arrests in 2002 in NM Our laws have targeted multiple offenders.. Our biggest Problem! 1st offenders. This segment is growing each year. 5+ 4th 3rd 1st 2nd We need to reach these persons BEFORE they offend. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  12. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  13. Recidivism of First Offenders in New Mexico Average Installation Time = .47 yrs N 1461 17166 MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  14. Court Mandated Interlocks Reduce the Recidivism of First Offenders MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  15. Interlocks are Effective with Court Mandated Offenders Comparison GroupsInterlocked Groups MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  16. Interlocks are Effective with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated Comparison GroupsInterlocked Groups MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  17. (3 or more DWI convictions in 10 years) 22.5% 6.0% MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  18. A study of DWI offenders arrestedbetween Jan 2003 and June, 2005. • 5707 offenders installed interlocks • 3036 of the 5707 removed their interlocks before end of study, June 30, 2005 • 38,105 persons were arrested for DWI but did not install interlocks MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  19. 90 Days was the minimum revocation time and the maximum jail time for first offenders Installed after 1/1/03 and removed before July 05 days MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  20. Jan 2003-June 2005 8% 8% 3% 38,105 5707 MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  21. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  22. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  23. Revised June 15, 2006 Note:Still missing data from one distributor. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  24. Missing data from one distributor MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  25. Missing data from one distributor MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  26. This graph only includes installations by convicted persons Same State…….. Same Law… Different Counties and Judges Wide Range of Installation Rates New Mexico Counties New Mexico State Santa Fe Magistrate Court Santa Fe County MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  27. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  28. Statewide recidivism decreased when Interlocks became mandatory. A 16% Reduction 8.0% Before 6.7% After MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  29. Before A 29% Reduction After 8.7% Before 6.2% After MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  30. Goals • 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 year. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  31. Recommendations • Immobilization or Interlock between DWI arrest and adjudication. • Mandatory Interlock for at least one year for all convicted offenders with immobilization as the only alternative. • Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC > .04 by any driver for a year. • Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation. • An Indigent Fund with objective standards. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  32. Loopholes in NM DWI Laws • Interlocks are not mandatory for all convicted DWI’s (Fixed 2005) • License Revocation is too short. (90 days for 1st DWI) (Better 2005) • Mandatory Interlock Period not long enough for some. (Better 2005) • Interlocks not mandated between Arrest and Adjudication. Some arrested DWI offenders endanger the public and others abscond. • Some offenders do not install when mandated to do so. • Technicalities result in not-guilty • No alternative sanction for “Not Driving” and “No Vehicle” excuses. • Some interlocked offenders drive non-interlocked vehicles. • Some interlocks are removed before end of Mandate. • No uniform standard for Indigency • No Central Supervision of Interlock Program MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  33. Legislative Proposals • Immobilization or Interlock on arrest for DWI (DWI offenders are a flight risk and a danger to the public and the vehicle is hazard to the public) • To insure no drinking during probation, mandate sobrieter, biweekly (random)urine tests, or interlock. • House arrest as an alternative to interlock for those who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving” MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  34. AlcoholTaxIncrease.org • Raise the Alcohol Excise Tax by about 10cents per drink and make it uniform. • 25 cents per ounce of alcohol in any alcoholic beverage. • This would help to pay for the prevention, treatment, enforcement, and adjudication that presently comes out of the general fund for alcohol crimes and adiction. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

  35. Key Contributors to NM’s Interlock Laws, Implementation, and Research • Mike Sandoval, NM Traffic Safety Bureau • Rachel O’Connor, NM DWI Tsarina` • Jim Davis, NM Div of Government Research • NM Legislators. Especially: Phil Griego, Kent Cravens, Ken Martinez, and Patsy Trujillo • Governors Johnson and Richardson • PIRE Colleagues: Paul Marques and Bob Voas • Jim Frank, NHTSA • NM Interlock Providers: ACS,ADS,CST,Draeger, Guardian, Lifesafer, and Smart Start • NM: TSB, MVD, DOT, AOC, DFA, DPS, MADD • NM Judges and prosecuting attorneys. MADD Technology Symposium June 2006