Interlocks in New Mexico

Interlocks in New Mexico
Richard Roth, PhD Executive Director, Impact DWI Citizen Lobbyist and Research Consultant Supported by PIRE, NHTSA, RWJ, and NM TSB , MADD DWI Technology Symposium, June 2006

An Ignition Interlock is an Electronic 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) Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Does an Interlock Law or Program Reduce DWI Re-Arrests?
Yes, if interlocks get installed. No, if interlocks do not get installed. First of all, I want to say that interlocks laws and programs can reduce DWI arrests. But only is they result in interlocks getting installed. Laws and Programs do not reduce recidivism, installed interlocks do. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

MADD Technology Symposium June 2006
Motivation Continuum For DWI Offenders to Install Interlocks Under Existing and Possible Laws From Incentives to Mandates From Carrots to Sticks So what aspects of Laws and Programs result in interlocks actually getting installed. There clearly is a Motivation Continuum….From Incentives to Mandates….from Carrots to Sticks. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Carrots Legal Driving Privileges
Early license reinstatement License reinstatement requirement. How soon after arrest? Some examples of carrots are 1. Reducing the length of the license revocation period..For example from 2 years to 1 year if the offender installs an interlock in the second year. 2. The next step up in motivation would be to require a period of driving with an interlock before one could receive an unrestricted license. 3. An even greater motivation would be the immediate availability, after a DWI arrest, of legal driving in an interlocked vehicle (and that’s what we have in New Mexico) Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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 Moving up in the motivation continuum we get to the Sticks, Judicial Mandates. The first is having a period of Ignition Interlock as an optional sentence for Multiple Offenders. Next is as an optional sentence for high BAC. Then as the stick gets bigger..A Mandatory sentence for some offenders, … eg. In NM for High BaC or subsequent offenders. Next is as a Mandatory sentence for all convicted offenders. But even at this level….there is a lot of wiggle room in most laws and programs we will see. One way to close many of them is to provide, as the only alternative to interlock, House Arrest, jail, with an enforced warrant program. Finally an even bigger stick would be loss of vehicle by immobilization, impoundment or forfeiture. And even this strongest stick would not reach those who are arrested but not convicted. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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: yr for 1st ; 2 for 2nd ; 3 for 3rd ; Lifetime for 4+ Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Estimate On June 17 of this year, the NM mandated interlocks for all convicted offenders and closed the loopholes of “not driving” by mandating an Ignition Interlock License rather than mandating “an interlock in all vehicles driven by the offender” This is my estimate of the number of installations in the next year, another big jump. But.. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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

Court Mandated Interlocks Reduce the Recidivism of First Offenders Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Interlocks are Effective with Court Mandated Offenders Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Interlocks are Effective with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

(3 or more DWI convictions in 10 years) 22.5% 6.0% For a more sophisticated analysis, I plotted one-minus-survival graphs and did univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. This one-minus-survival graph shows the fraction of the control group and the interlock group that are rearrested as a function of time. Clearly a much smaller fraction of the interlocked group were rearrested at any time (measured after installation and before removal for the interlock group and measured after the 3rd conviction in 10 years for the control group). Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

A study of DWI offenders arrested between 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 Next I will report on a study of all of the offenders arrested or interlocked between 2003 and June, In that period 5707 persons arrested for DWI in New Mexico installed interlocks. Before the end of the study period, 53 % of the interlocked offenders, 3036 out of 5707, had removed their interlocks. The control group consisted of 38,105 persons who were arrested during the same period but did not install interlocks. Note that this study includes voluntary and mandatory installations of interlocks. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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 For the 3036 who removed interlocks before the end of the study period, this slide shows the distribution of installation times. You can see big peaks at 90 days and 1 year. The revocation for first offenders who did not refuse the BAC test was 90 days and the revocation for all others was 1 year. Also some judges mandated 90 day installations for first offenders because of the 90 maximum jail term for first offenders. The average installation time was 7 months (213 days) and the median was less than 6 months. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Jan 2003-June 2005 8% 8% 3% 38,105 This slide shows the fraction re-arrested for DWI while interlocks were installed compared to the control group. It’s obvious that the interlocked group has far less recidivism. 5707 Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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

Missing data from one distributor Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

This graph only includes installations by convicted persons Same State…….. Same Law… Different Counties and Judges Wide Range of Installation Rates New Mexico Counties This chart shows the wide variation in interlock installations per convicted offender among counties and courts in New Mexico..under the same laws. The state average is 12%. Only 7 of the 33 counties in the state are above the state average. In Santa Fe County, where I live, 45% offenders convicted in 2004 installed interlocks before July 1, 2005. And the 3 judges in Santa Fe Magistrate court managed to get 66% of the 701 persons they convicted in 2004 to install interlocks. Laws alone do not get interlocks installed. The Santa Fe Magistrate Court Judges simply mandated interlocks for all convicted offenders with House Arrest at offender expense as the only alternative. Unfortunately these same judges usually mandated interlocks for only 90 days, the maximum jail term for first offenders. Amazingly they did not realize that the law said “1 year”, not “up to 1 year” and the probation period is not limited to the maximum jail term. New Mexico State Santa Fe Magistrate Court Santa Fe County Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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

Before A 29% Reduction After 8.7% Before 6.2% After Even greater effect in Santa Fe County where more interlocks were installed per DWI conviction. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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. In conclusion, the ideal program would 1 Get Interlocks into the vehicles of ALL those arrested for DWI as soon as possible after arrest, and 2 keep them installed until there is evidence of Alcohol-Free Driving for a year. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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. And finally here is my recommendation for Ideal Ignition Interlock Laws: 1. Mandatory interlocks for at least 1 year for all convicted DWIs with immobilization as the only alternative. 2nd The an Ignition Interlock License as a complete alternative to revocation. (the best carrot for offenders and essential for judges to mandate interlocks) 3rd. a fund to support the cost of interlocks for the objectively indigent, supported by a surcharge on non-indigent offenders. We have almost achieved these first three in NM. We do not have immobilization as the only alternative to interlock and our indigent fund does not have an objective standard. There are 2 more components of the set of Ideal Laws: First, Compliance Based Removal, the requirement of at least a continuous year of alcohol-free driving in the interlocked vehicle as evidenced by no recorded BAC > 0.04 by any driver of the vehicle. And secondly to reach everyone arrested, I recommend immobilization or interlock of the vehicles of all persons arrested for DWIs (because the offenders are flight risks and their vehicles are danger to the public as evidenced by the number of additional DWI arrests between their original arrest and its adjudication. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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 Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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” Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

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. Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

Interlocks in New Mexico

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Interlocks in New Mexico"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Interlocks in New Mexico

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Interlocks in New Mexico"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback