1. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium1 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.”

2. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium2 Reducing DWI With Interlocks The New Mexico Experience Minnesota Interlock Symposium February 22, 2007 Richard Roth, PhD Research Consultant and Citizen Lobbyist Supported by PIRE, RWJ, and NM TSB

3. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium3 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)

4. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium4 New Mexico Interlock Laws 1999 Optional for 2 nd and 3 rd 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 1 st ; 2 for 2 nd ; 3 for 3 rd ; Lifetime for 4+

5. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium5 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.

6. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium6 Estimate My Estimate In 2005 5688 So Far

7. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium7 How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization?

8. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium8 How many interlock licenses have been granted and is the rate changing?

9. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium9

10. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium10 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

11. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium11 Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations

12. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium12 Comparison Groups(RED) Interlocked Groups(GREEN) Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders

13. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium13 RED=Comparison Groups GREEN=Interlocked Groups Effectiveness with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated

14. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium14 No Priors

15. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium15 Did the Mandatory Ignition Interlock Law Change the Statewide DWI Re-arrest Rate? Overall NM DWI Re-arrests before and after mandatory interlocks and Licensing Act DWI Re-arrests in the County that used the most interlocks/DWI

16. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium16 8.0% Before 6.7% After A 16% Reduction Statewide recidivism decreased.

17. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium17 8.7% Before 6.2% After A 29% Reduction Before After

18. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium18

19. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium19 Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities

20. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium20

21. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium21 Survey of Interlocked Offenders 77%81% 69% 63% N = 796

22. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium22 January to September 2006

23. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium23 Interlocks Installed Per Conviction in First 9 months of 2006 Caution: this figure includes installations by persons not convicted, and changes of provider.

24. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium24 Interlocks Installed per DWI Arrest by County in NM Jan-Sept 2006 Caution: Includes some changes of Provider. Room for Improvement

25. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium25

26. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium26 Proposals to Close NM Loopholes 1.Add “or electronic monitoring” for No car. 2.Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked without an interlock. 3.Vehicle Immobilization or Interlock between arrest and adjudication. 4.Crime to contribute to circumvention. 5.Apply interlock sanction to juvenile offenders. 6.Mandate a period of alcohol-free DRIVING before getting unrestricted license.

27. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium27 MN NM 2005 Comparison 4.9M1.9MPopulation 86%43%White, non Hispanic 4%43%Hispanic and Latino 1.2%10%Native American 3.6M1.2MLicensed Drivers 37,00218,478DWI Arrests 0.16%0.16%Average BAC 30,53412,765DWI Convictions 82%69%Conviction Rate ~20,70010,834“First Offenders” ~56%59%Percent First Offenders 201189Alcohol Involved Fatalities

28. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium28 What does this trend imply? 1. Bad News: More Drunk Driving?.... or 2. Good News: More Enforcement?

29. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium29 What do these trends imply? Good News: LESS DRUNK DRIVING Or Safer Hiways…or Safer Cars….or More Seat Belt Use DWI

30. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium30 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.

31. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium31 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

32. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium32 Ideal Judicial Program 1.Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders 2.With electronic monitoring or periodic urine tests as the only alternatives 3.Minimum of one year duration 4.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 SCRAM 6.Mandatory Treatment if indicated by #5.

33. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium33 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.

34. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium34 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 costs Compliance based removal and referral to treatment.

35. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium35 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

36. Roth 2/22/07Minnesota Interlock Symposium36 Legislative Recommendations 1.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 Unrestricted License Reinstatement.