IGNITION INTERLOCKS AND DRUNK DRIVING Richard Roth, PhD Region 6 Interlock Institute August...

IGNITION INTERLOCKS AND DRUNK DRIVING

Richard Roth, PhD

Region 6 Interlock Institute August 9-10,2010Sponsored by MADD and NHTSA

Research Supported ByNM TSB, NHTSA, PIRE, RWJ, and Impact DWI

Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike RaceOne Dead, 10 Injured , June 1, 2008

2Roth 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference

Roth 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference 3

141

Many Interventions Contribute to Reducing Drunk Driving

• Ignition Interlocks• 24/7 Monitored Abstenence (SD)• Treatment and DWI Courts• License Revocation• Victim Impact Panels• Increased Enforcement• Publicity and Prevention Programs• Alcohol Sales Restrictions• DWI Task Force and Czar• Research to guide legislative choices


Which States Are Making the Most Progress At Reducing DWI?


6

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 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference

7

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 12,000 offenders surveyed.

• ..But they only work if… • you get them installed.


8

III. INTERLOCK PROGRAMS

1. Identify Goals2. Increase Incentives3. Eliminate Hoops4. Close Loopholes5. Triage Sanctions6. Research


9

III.1. Identify Goals Effective, Cost-Effective, and Fair

Reduction of Drunk Driving.

• Get interlocks installed ASAP after DWI.

• Get all offenders to install.

• Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of changed behavior.


Key Actions To Achieve Goals

10

III.2. Increase the Incentives

• Right to Drive Legally• Condition of Probation• Right to Re-register Vehicle• Avoid Electronic Sobriety Monitoring• Reduce or Avoid Jail• Satisfy one requirement for an Unrestricted

License


11

III.3. Eliminate the Hoops

• Period of Hard Revocation• Fines and Fees Paid• Outstanding legal obligations• Alcohol Screening and Assessment• Medical Evaluation• DWI School• Victim Impact Panel• Community Service


12

III.4. Close Loopholes

• Waiting out Revocation Period.• “No Car” or “Not Driving” Excuse.• Driving While Revoked.• Driving a non-interlocked vehicle.• Serve Warrants for Non-compliance


13

III.5. Triage Up in Sanctions• Extension of Interlock Period• Photo Interlock• Home Photo Breathalyzer• SCRAM• Treatment• House Arrest• Jail


14

III.6. ResearchMeasures of Effectiveness

• Interlocks per Arrested Offender• Recidivism of Interlocked vs Not Interlocked.• Reduction in Overall Recidivism.• Reduction in DWI Crashes.• Reduction in DWI Injuries.• Reduction in DWI Fatalities.


IX.Model Ignition Interlock Programby Dick Roth October 20, 2009

1. Mandatory Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders. 1 yr for 1st, 2 yrs for second, 3 yrs for 3rd, and 5 yrs for 4 or more.

2. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring for convicted offenders who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving. Daily requirement of morning and evening alcohol-free breath tests as a condition of probation.(or $1000/yr for supervised probation)

3. An ignition interlock license available to all persons revoked for DWI with no other restrictions. Allow MVD to set fee to cover cost.


Model Ignition Interlock Programby Dick Roth October 20, 2009 continued

4. An Indigent Fund with objective standards such as eligibility for income support or food stamps.

5. Vehicle immobilization or interlock between arrest and adjudication. (or Void Registration or Bond Requirement)

6. Vehicle forfeiture for driving a non-interlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI.

7. No end to revocation period before satisfaction of at least one year of alcohol-free driving with an IID. (eg. ≥ 5000 miles and ≥ 1 year with no BAC>0.05 by any driver) .

8. Criminal sanction for circumvention of IID. 16Roth 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference

17

I. The New Mexico Interlock Program

1. Evolution of Laws 2. Interlock Installations vs Time3. Currently Installed Interlocks vs Time4. Interlock Licenses Granted5. Comparisons to Other States


I.1. The New Mexico Laws• 1999 Optional Judicial Mandate for 2nd and 3rd DWI• 2002 Mandatory Judicial Sanction for 1st Aggravated and

All Subsequent Offenders• 2002 Indigent Fund • 2003 Ignition Interlock License available for all revoked

offenders with no waiting period. (Admin. Prog.)• 2005 Mandatory Judicial Sanction: 1 yr for 1st; 2 yrs for

2nd; 3 yrs for 3rd; and lifetime with 5 yr review for 4+• 2005 ALR and JLR periods increased• 2009 No Unrestricted License without Interlock Period• 2010 Objective Standard for Indigency



I.2.A


I.4.

22

C urrently Ins talled Interloc ks by S tateData from 9 of 10 providers ; P lot by R ic hard R oth, P hD; Aug us t 2009

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Tex

as

Ari

zon

a

Was

hin

gto

n

Co

lora

do

New

Mex

ico

No

rth

Car

oli

na

Flo

rid

a

Cal

ifo

rnia

Mar

ylan

d

Iow

a

Illi

no

is

Vir

gin

ia

Mic

hig

an

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Mis

sou

ri

Oh

io

Mas

sach

use

tts

Lo

uis

ian

a

Ore

go

n

Geo

rgia

Kan

sas

New

Yo

rk

Ark

ansa

s

Okl

aho

ma

Wes

t V

irg

inia

Uta

h

Neb

rask

a

Wis

con

sin

Idah

o

Co

nn

ecti

cut

Nev

ada

New

Jer

sey

Ala

ska

Mo

nta

na

Ken

tuck

y

Wyo

min

g

Ind

ian

a

Ten

nes

see

Del

awar

e

Mis

siss

ipp

i

New

Ham

psh

ire

Min

nes

ota

So

uth

Car

oli

na

So

uth

Dak

ota

Ala

bam

a

Rh

od

e Is

lan

d

Haw

aii

No

rth

Dak

ota

Ver

mo

nt

DC

Mai

ne

Roth 6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference

Currently Installed Interlocks by StateI.5.A

23

Interlocks per 10,000 residents by stateData from 9 of 10 providers; Plot by Richard Roth, PhD;August, 2009

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

New

Mex

ico

Ari

zon

a W

ash

ing

ton

Co

lora

do

Io

wa

Mar

ylan

d

No

rth

Car

oli

na

Wes

t V

irg

inia

Tex

as

Kan

sas

Neb

rask

a O

reg

on

Vir

gin

ia

Ark

ansa

s

Lo

uis

ian

a U

tah

Mis

sou

ri

Ala

ska

Wyo

min

g

Okl

aho

ma

Flo

rid

a M

ich

igan

Illi

no

is

Mas

sach

use

tts

Idah

o

Mo

nta

na

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Oh

io

Geo

rgia

Nev

ada

Cal

ifo

rnia

Wis

con

sin

C

on

nec

ticu

t

New

Yo

rk

Del

awar

e

Ken

tuck

y N

ew J

erse

y

So

uth

Dak

ota

N

ew H

amp

shir

e

Ind

ian

a T

enn

esse

e

Mis

siss

ipp

i

Min

nes

ota

S

ou

th C

aro

lin

a

Rh

od

e Is

lan

d

Ver

mo

nt

No

rth

Dak

ota

A

lab

ama

Haw

aii DC

Mai

ne

Roth 6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference

Per Capita Interlocks by StateI.5.B

24

I.5.C

I.5.D The NHTSA Measure


26

II. Measures of Effectiveness1. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction3. Overall Statewide Recidivism vs Time4. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes5. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries6. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities7. Correlation between Interlocks Installed and

Measures of Drunk Driving8. New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired

Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM9. Opinions of Interlocked Offenders



II.1.A Interlocked Offenders Have Much Less Recidivism In the Year After a DWI Arrest

128,314 NM (ZIP) Residents arrested 2002-2008. IID are those who installed interlock within 1 year of arrest.


II.1.B Interlocked Offenders Have Much Less Recidivism In the Two Years After a DWI Arrest

109,897 NM (ZIP) Residents arrested 2002-2007. IID are those who installed interlock within 1 year of arrest


II.1.C Overall DWI Re-Arrests Substantially Reduced


II.1.D Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM

77% lower

78% lower

84% lower

76% lower


II.2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction


II.3. Overall DWI Recidivism


II.4.


II.5.


141

II.6.B.


II.7.

37

II.8.

38 % Reduction


38

Survey of 1513 Interlocked Offenders

• 88% Helpful in avoiding another DWI• 83% Helpful at reducing their drinking• 89% Effective at reducing their drunk driving• 70% Cost-Effective..benefits outweigh the costs• 80% A Fair Sanction For DWI Offenders• 72% All convicted DWI’s should have interlocks• 63% All arrested DWI’s should have interlocks.


II.9.

IV. What We Have Learned in NM• Judicial Mandates get more interlocks installed

than Administrative requirements. 3 to 1 in NM.• First offenders must be included because they are

60% to 80% of all DWI offenders, and almost as likely to be re-arrested as subsequent offenders.

• There must be an Interlock License available ASAP.

• Revoked offenders are 3-4 times more likely to be re-arrested for DWI than interlocked offenders.

• Hard revocation periods just teach offenders that they can drive without being arrested.

• Given a choice, most offenders choose revocation over interlock …and they keep driving after drinking.


V. Loopholes that Remain in NM

1. “No Car” or “Not Driving” excuse SB308 20092. No interlock between arrest and adjudication

(Learning, DWI, Absconding) SB270 20093. Ineffective Penalty for DWR ..SB307 20094. Possibility of waiting out revocation period

without installing an interlock5. No Objective Standard for Indigency6. Insufficient Funding: Increase Alcohol Excise Tax7. Refusals….Enforce Implied Consent.. BAC


Loopholes that Remain in NM

V.1. “No Car” or “Not Driving”

41

The FIX1. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring:

A. As a condition of ProbationB. For all who claim “No Car” or “Not DrivingC. For the same period and cost as an interlockD. Paid for by the offenderE. Minimum of morning and evening checks per day.F. Eg. Smart Start IN-HOM Photo Breathalyzer.

2. A fee equal to the cost of an interlock to be used for supervised probation.

Expected ResultMore Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving

Task Force



V.2. No Interlock Between Arrest and Adjudication.

42

The FIX 1. Immobilization or Interlock between Arrest and Adjudication or2. Void Vehicle Registration on Arrest (unless interlock is installed or

arrest is successfully appealed) or3. Interlock as a condition of bond

Expected ResultMore Interlocks, Less Absconding, Fewer DWI’s between Arrest

and Adjudication

The Problem: A. Some Offenders re-offend between arrest and adjudicationB. Some offenders abscond. i.e. they are a flight risk.C. Offenders learn that they can drive while revoked with a low probability of

apprehension

Task Force



V.3. Ineffective Penalty for DWRToo Strong..Not Applied

43

The FIX (SB 307)

Vehicle Forfeiture for Driving While Revoked without an Interlock


Compromise-Task ForceRoth 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference

Loopholes that Remained in NMV.4. Offenders Wait Out the

Revocation Period without Interlock

44

The FIX SB 275No Unrestricted License without a period of Interlock

• All those revoked for DWI • must have a minimum of 6 months of driving with an interlock and an

interlock license, and• Must fulfill any Judicial Interlock Mandate• Before they are eligible for an unrestricted license.


SB 275 Became NM Law July 1, 2009Roth 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference

45

V.5. With No Objective Standard, NM Judges Certified up to 35% as Indigent.


PART 2

• First Offenders: Myths vs Research• Young Offenders 16-30• Miscelaneous Findings• Model Interlock Program• Discussion


47

VI. Myths About First Offenders

1. First Offenders Drove Drunk Once2. Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics3. Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem4. Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested5. Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities6. Interlocks are not cost-effective for them7. Interlocks are a not a fair sanction for them8. Interlocks are not effective for them9. Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them.10. Sanctions are more important than prevention.Roth 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference

48

They have driven an average of 500 times after drinking before their first arrest.

VI.1First Offenders Are Not First Offenders

R. Roth. Anonymous surveys of convicted DWI offenders at Victim Impact Panels in Santa Fe, NM


They are multiple offenders who were finally caught.

49

VI.2


51

VI. 4. First Offenders are Just as Dangerous as Subsequent Offenders


What Fraction of Impaired Drivers in Fatal Crashes are First Offenders?


NHTSA Definitions;Impaired Driver: BAC >= 0.08

First Offender: No BAC Conviction in Previous 3 Years.

92 %http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf page 4

VI.5

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf

Recidivism of Convicted First Offenders10,117 Interlocked; 33,348 Not Interlocked


Recidivism of 1st Offenders While Interlocked

T1: Time During Installation or Equivalent

1.00.75.50.250.00

Fra

ctio

n R

e-A

rre

ste

d F

or

DW

I

.08

.07

.06

.05

.04

.03

.02

.01

0.00

Group

Not Interlocked

Interlocked

Recidivism of First Offenders

With and Without Interlock

Total Time After Installation or Conviction

6543210

Fra

ctio

n R

e-a

rre

ste

d F

for

DW

I

.3

.2

.1

0.0

Group

Not Interlocked

Interlocked

VI.8 Effective VI:6 Cost Effective

Univariate HR(CG/IG)= 1.77Multivariate HR(CG/IG)= 1.59

Univariate HR(CG/IG)= 4.52Multivariate HR(CG/IG)= 4.01

54

50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%

1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

% o

f Fir

st O

ffen

ders

Year of Arrest

DWI First Offenders in NMEach Year a Greater Fraction of DWI Offenders are First Offenders. This indicates that our sanctions have been

more successful than our prevention efforts .

1st in 10 Years

1st since 1984


VI.10 The importance of Prevention and General Deterrents

55

VII. Young Offenders

1. Have the highest DWI arrest rates2. Have the highest re-arrest rates3. Have the highest DWI crash rates


56

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

NM DWI Citations by Age Group

2007

2002


DWI Citations Fall Off Dramatically With Age

Underage drinkers do not have the highest arrest rate, but

VII.1.


Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate.VII.2


Severe Alcohol-Involved Crash RateCrashes per 1000 Drivers in NM in 2004

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

15-20 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+

Age Range

VII.3.

59

VIII. Miscellaneous Findings

1. Females are an increasing fraction of DWI2. Longer interlock periods are more effective

for subsequent offenders.3. How do interlocked offenders get re-

arrested for DWI?4. Variations in Installation Rate by County.5. Crime and Punishment6. Who Dies in Alcohol-Impaired Crashes


60

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Fraction of DWI Offenders That Are Female vs Year of Arrest


VIII.1.

61

One Minus Survival Function

AGROUP = 1

T3 Time After Arrest

543210

On

e M

inu

s C

um

Su

rviv

al

.30

.25

.20

.15

.10

.05

0.00

Duration

>400 days

300-400

<300 days


AGROUP = 2

T3

543210

On

e M

inu

s C

um

Su

rviv

al

.30

.25

.20

.15

.10

.05

0.00

Duration

>400 days

300-400

<300 days


AGROUP = 3

T3

543210

On

e M

inu

s C

um

Su

rviv

al

.30

.25

.20

.15

.10

.05

0.00

Duration

>400 days

300-400

<300 days


AGROUP = 4

T3

543210

On

e M

inu

s C

um

Su

rviv

al

.30

.25

.20

.15

.10

.05

0.00

Duration

>400 days

300-400

<300 days

1 year is Best A year or more is best

More than a year is best More than a year is best

(4th or More)

VIII. 2. Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock….PRELIMINARY DATA



Not Arrested While Interlocked

N=14,730 97.5%

Arrested In Interlocked

. Vehicle N=~92 0.6%

Arrested In Vehicle With a Different

License Plate

N=~287 1.9%

Sample of 15,109 Interlocked In New Mexico

VIII.3.

63

VIII.4.


VIII.5. Whether a drunk drivergets home safely or kills someone

does not depend on

It just depends on a four letter word that rhymes with “duck”.

LUCK

1.Prior Drunk Driving Trips2.Prior DWI Arrests3.Prior DWI Convictions



VIII.6. Who Dies in Alcohol-Impaired Crashes?

IX.Model Ignition Interlock Programby Dick Roth October 20, 2009

1. Mandatory Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders. 1 yr for 1st, 2 yrs for second, 3 yrs for 3rd, and 5 yrs for 4 or more.

2. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring for convicted offenders who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving. Daily requirement of morning and evening alcohol-free breath tests as a condition of probation.(or $1000/yr for supervised probation)

3. An ignition interlock license available to all persons revoked for DWI with no other restrictions. Allow MVD to set fee to cover cost.


Model Ignition Interlock Programby Dick Roth October 20, 2009 continued

4. An Indigent Fund with objective standards such as eligibility for income support or food stamps.

5. Vehicle immobilization or interlock between arrest and adjudication. (or Void Registration or Bond Requirement)

6. Vehicle forfeiture for driving a non-interlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI.

7. No end to revocation period before satisfaction of at least one year of alcohol-free driving with an IID. (eg. ≥ 5000 miles and ≥ 1 year with no BAC>0.05 by any driver) .

8. Criminal sanction for circumvention of IID. 67Roth 8/9/10 NHTSA/MADD Region 6 II Conference


Richard Roth, PhDExecutive Director Impact [email protected]

Impact DWI Websiteswww.ImpactDWI.org

.www.PEDAforTeens.orgwww.AlcoholTaxIncrease.org

www.RothInterlock.org

IGNITION INTERLOCKS AND DRUNK DRIVING Richard Roth, PhD Region 6 Interlock Institute August...

Documents

Transcript of IGNITION INTERLOCKS AND DRUNK DRIVING Richard Roth, PhD Region 6 Interlock Institute August...