Getting a DWI May Also Entail Getting a New Car Accessory in a Few States

Advances in technology are frequently adapted to assist law enforcement in detecting and preventing criminal activity.  Few motorists are unfamiliar with the use of breathalyzers by law enforcement officers for sobriety testing.  Once more, new technologies are continually finding new applications in this area.  For example, the use of ignition mechanisms—which function in a similar way to a police breathalyzers—have been around for many years; yet, their use has generally been limited to repeat offenders.  These devices have even found their way into popular culture.  For those who have watched The 40 Year Old Virgin, few will forget the alcohol ignition system that was required for the film’s DWI offender.

What has changed is that a handful of states, beginning in 2009, are now requiring these devices for drivers who are convicted for their first DWI offense.  The states implementing these measures include Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington.  In addition, beginning this year, South Carolina will now require an ignition system for repeat offenders.

Referred to as a “Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device,” these systems are now in use in at least 41 states and approximately 30,000 devices are installed in the US and Canada.  Basically, the device requires the vehicle operator to take a breath-alcohol test before starting the car and then to submit to retesting during operation of the vehicle.  “If the operator’s blood alcohol content tests at 0.02 or higher the vehicle will not turn on, or will shut down.”  See here for the details.  To put this in context, in states like Illinois and South Carolina, the legal limit is 0.08.

It should be obvious that these laws have a legitimate mission:  modify behavior and save lives.  A 1999 study on DWI recidivism showed that while an ignition system was installed, offenders were 15 to 69 percent less likely to be rearrested for DWI violations than those without interlocks.  It is reasonable to assume that these systems could be even more effective for those with their first DWI violation.  For a state like South Carolina, which suffers from high levels of DWI related deaths, it is clear why this device is so attractive.  In 2006 alone, there were 850 DWI related deaths in South Carolina and 7,000 injuries.  Fifty percent of all highway related deaths in South Carolina are alcohol related.  Therefore, when a state like New Mexico is able to reduce fatalities by 28 percent after the introduction of the ignition device, the attraction is warranted.

However, many point out that these devices also raise several concerns.  For instance, once the devices are removed, recidivism rates often return to their prior levels.  The devices can also be very expensive.  At a minimum, the costs associated with these devices adds to the total cost of a DWI proceeding.  Thus, the increased cost will inevitably cause many people (particularly first time offenders) to fight the charge in court, thus bogging down court systems further.  Also, the devices do nothing to address DWI violations that arise from the use of marijuana, cocaine or methamphetamine; therefore, should those violators be required to have the system installed as well?  The 0.02 percent limit also means that individuals who are particularly concerned about dental hygiene could set the device off if they do not wait long enough after using mouthwash.  It is also possible for another person to blow into the device when the DWI offender is driving.  Nor can this approach do anything to stop violators from driving other vehicles that do not have the device, like a rental car or a family member’s vehicle.  Finally, who will install all of these devices when many major electronics retailers are on the verge of collapse?

Ultimately, this seems like a very good idea, but in practice it will likely take a significant amount of trial and error to work out the kinks.