Legislation
U.S. Legislation
The U.S. has passed a law requiring DUI and DWI offenders to install an ignition interlock device (IID) as a condition of license reinstatement or probation after a drunk driving condition. Since July 2004, more than 75,000 IIDs were installed in the U.S.
The majority (95 percent) of the 75,000 IIDs were installed in 21 states; Texas installed more than any state —12,500. These 21 states partaking in IID programs came about as a result of Congress passing the Transportation Restoration Act in June 1998.
As a minimum penalty, each state requires that an individual convicted of a second or subsequent offense for DWI or DUI shall abide by the following:
- Receive a driver’s license suspension for at least one year.
- Receive an alcohol abuse assessment and treatment, if necessary.
- Be subject to impoundment or immobilization of vehicles, or the installation of an interlock system on each vehicle.
Individuals convicted of a second offense will be subject to the following:
- At least 30 days of community service or five days of imprisonment.
Individuals convicted of a third offense will be subject to the following:
- At least 60 days of community service or 10 days of imprisonment.
States failing to enact the above provisions will be subject to having three percent of funds apportioned to the State under paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of Section 104 (b) transferred to the State’s 402 apportionment. Although more than 21 states passed laws to comply with Section 164, some issues blocked effective use of the interlock system, including:
- The one–year suspension must be a hard suspension with no restricted driving, even if an interlock is installed.
- The interlock should be installed after the revocation period and must be installed on each vehicle the offender owns. This creates a problem because the offender can transfer the title of his or her car.
- No allowance for an employer–exempted vehicle.
- Courts were required to order installation of the device; however, judges opposed the installation.
- If the courts failed to impose the IID mandate, administrative licensing authorities were not given specific authorization to do so.
- Some statutes only created an interlock restriction period which expired, allowing the offender to “sit–out” a longer suspension period.
Senate
The one–year hard suspension would be reduced to 90 days, and an interlock restriction would be required for the remainder of the license suspension.
Interlock restriction would be associated to the offender's driver license, not the vehicle.
House of Representatives
The one–year hard suspension would be reduced to 45 days.
Interlock restriction would become qualifying criteria for the largest Highway Safety Block Grant under Section 410.
By signing these amendments into law, DUI and DWI offenders will have an incentive to voluntarily participate in interlock programs. No state with an existing mandatory IID state law and viable interlock program complies with all three requirements stated above.