Presentation on theme: "Richard Roth, PhD. Executive Director, Impact DWI Research Supported By NM TSB, PIRE, NHTSA, and RWJ 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth1."— Presentation transcript:
Richard Roth, PhD. Executive Director, Impact DWI Research Supported By NM TSB, PIRE, NHTSA, and RWJ 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth1
Measures of Program Effectiveness 32% of all persons arrested for DWI are installing interlocks. More currently-installed interlocks per capita than any other state or nation. Recidivism of interlocked offenders is reduced by 65%. Overall statewide recidivism is 30% lower since 2002. Alcohol Involved Crashes are down 30% in 4 years Alcohol Involved Injuries are down 32% in 4 years. Alcohol Involved Fatalities are down 22% in 5 years. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth2
The New Mexico Laws 1999 Optional Judicial Mandate for 2 nd and 3 rd DWI 2002 Mandatory Sentence for 1 st Aggravated and All Subsequent Offenders. 2002 Indigent Fund 2003 Ignition Interlock License available for all revoked offenders with no waiting period. 2005 Mandatory Sentence: 1 yr for 1 st ; 2 yrs for 2 nd ; 3 yrs for 3 rd ; and lifetime with 5 yr review for 4 or more. 2005 ALR and JLR periods increased 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth3
1999-2002 Optional Judicial Sanction For 2 nd and 3 rd DWI Offenders Only 150 interlocks installed per year. (~4000 2 nd or 3 rd convictions per year) Judges were reluctant to mandate interlocks for offenders who could not get a license to drive the interlocked vehicle. Interlocked offenders did have a 65% lower re-arrest rate while interlocks were installed. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth4 Roth, R., Voas, R., Marques, P. Mandating Interlocks for Fully Suspended Offenders: The New Mexico Experience. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8, 20-25.
2003-5 Mandatory Judicial Sanction for 1 st Aggravated and above, Installation rate jumped from 150/yr to 1000 per year. Judges were still reluctant to mandate interlocks for offenders who could not drive legally at all. Many judges felt that they had to apply an additional sanction when interlocked offenders were prevented from driving because of a BAC > 0.025%. Non-interlocked offenders continued to have 3 times the DWI re-arrest rate of interlocked offenders. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth5
June, 2003 Ignition Interlock License Act for Revoked Offenders IILA reduced reluctance of judges to mandate interlocks. Some (10%) of those on 10 year revocation for having had 3 DWI convictions in 10 years took advantage of IILA to drive legally when sober. Others installed to drive legally before adjudication. Installation Rate jumped from 1000/yr to 3000/yr Volunteers were a very self-selected group and it was no surprise that they had an even lower re-arrest rate than mandated offenders. One problem was that many 1 st Ag’s were pled down. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth6
June 17, 2005 Mandatory Judicial Sanction 1 yr for 1 st, 2yrs for 2 nd, 3 yrs for 3 rd, lifetime with 5 yr review for 4 th +; Installation rate rose from 3000 to 6000 per year. 6000/ 19,000 DWI arrests = 32% 6000/12,000 DWI Convictions = 0.50 Same 65% reductions in re-arrest rate Major Remaining Loophole: No equivalent sanction for those who claim “no car”, but are 3 times more likely to be re-arrested. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth7 Richard Roth; Robert Voas; Paul Marques. Interlocks for First Offenders: Effective? Traffic Injury Prevention. December 2007. 8:4, 346-352
4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth8 Publicity, Increased Enforcement, and Forfeiture Ordinances also contributed to the declines in the the measures of drunk driving.
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 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. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth9
Loopholes that Remain in NM “No Car” excuse. No interlock between arrest and adjudication (Learning, DWI, Absconding) Possibility of waiting out revocation period without interlock (for “no car”, not-convicted, and absconders) 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth10
NM Loophole Fixes For those who claim “no car”, a fee equal to the cost of an interlock for supervised probation of the offender or an equally costly daily home BAC test. Vehicle Immobilization or Interlock between arrest and adjudication. No full license reinstatement without a mandatory interlock period. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth11
Model Program Recommendation Administrative: After ALR, No full license reinstatement without period of alcohol free driving in an interlocked vehicle. (1 yr no BAC>0.05 by any driver) Judicial: Mandatory Interlock for all convicted offenders, minimum 1 yr of alcohol free driving. Vehicle immobilization or interlock between arrest and adjudication. An indigent fund with objective standards. Vehicle forfeiture for driving a non-interlocked vehicle while revoked. 4/14/2008New Mexico Interlock Program Dick Roth12