Ignition Interlock Program Monitoring...conditional discharge sentences. These monitors must report related violations to the appropriate court4 and district attorney as well as certain

Division of LocaL Government & schooL accountabiLity

o f f i c e o f t h e n e w y o r k s t a t e c o m p t r o L L e r

2015-MS-4

Ignition Interlock Program Monitoring

thomas p. Dinapoli

Page

AUTHORITY LETTER 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

INTRODUCTION 4 Background 4 Objective 7 Scope and Methodology 7 CommentsofLocalOfficials 8

MONITORING 9 Reporting of IID Installation Violations 9 Reporting of Negative IID Activity 11 Recommendation 14

APPENDIX A ResponseFromLocalOfficials 15APPENDIX B Audit Methodology and Standards 16APPENDIX C DefinitionsandMonitoringRequirements 17APPENDIX D How to Obtain Additional Copies of the Report 20APPENDIX E LocalRegionalOfficeListing 21

Table of Contents

11Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller

Division of Local Governmentand School Accountability April 2016

DearCountyOfficials:

A toppriorityof theOfficeof theStateComptroller is tohelp localgovernmentofficialsmanagegovernment resources efficiently and effectively and, by so doing, provide accountability for taxdollarsspenttosupportgovernmentoperations.TheComptrolleroverseesthefiscalaffairsoflocalgovernmentsstatewide,aswellascompliancewithrelevantstatutesandobservanceofgoodbusinesspractices.Thisfiscaloversightisaccomplished,inpart,throughouraudits,whichidentifyopportunitiesfor improving operations and county governance. Audits also can identify strategies to reduce costs and to strengthen controls intended to safeguard local government assets.

Following is a reportofour audit, entitled Ignition InterlockProgramMonitoring.This auditwasconducted pursuant toArticleV, Section 1 of the State Constitution and the State Comptroller’sauthority as set forth in Article 3 of the General Municipal Law.

This audit’s results and recommendations are resources for local government officials to use ineffectivelymanagingoperationsand inmeeting theexpectationsof their constituents. Ifyouhavequestionsaboutthisreport,pleasefeelfreetocontacttheStatewideAuditsoffice,aslistedattheendof this report.

Respectfullysubmitted,

Office of the State ComptrollerDivision of Local Governmentand School Accountability

State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller

2 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller2

Office of the State ComptrollerState of New York

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An ignition interlock device (IID) is a breath-alcohol measurement device used to monitor individuals convictedofcertainalcohol-relatedoffenses.AnIIDinstalled inavehicle requires theoperator toprovide a breath sample in order to start the vehicle. The vehicle will not start if the device registers thedriver’sblood-alcohollevelaboveacertainpre-setlimit.Driversarealsopromptedtoblowintothe device at unknown intervals to ensure they have not been drinking after the vehicle has started.

OnNovember18,2009,NewYorkStateenactedlegislation1toprotectpublicsafety.Itrequiresthat,as a condition of being sentenced for certain alcohol-related offenses occurring on or after August 15,2010,convictedindividualsmustinstallandmaintainanIIDonanyvehicletheyownoroperatefor a certain period of time.2TheNewYorkStateDivisionofCriminalJusticeServices(DCJS)hasregulations for counties and others establishing standards for the usage and monitoring of IIDs ordered by criminal courts for these alcohol-related sentences.3

Ourauditfocusedonsixcounties’monitoringofcaseswithIIDcourtorders(theIgnitionInterlockProgram).Countyprobationdepartmentsmonitorcourt-orderedinstallationsandIIDuseforprobationsentences, and the county, as part of its Program plan, identifies a responsible party to monitorconditional discharge sentences. These monitors must report related violations to the appropriate court4 and district attorney as well as certain negative IID activity (including failed tests due to blood alcoholcontent(BAC)levels,reportsofallegedtamperingwithorcircumventinganIIDoranattemptthereof,IIDlockouts,ornon-compliancewithaservicevisitrequirement).ThefailureofanindividualtocomplywiththeProgrammayresultinthecourtmodifyingorrevokingtheconditionaldischargeorprobationsentence.Therefore,monitoringisakeycomponentforensuringthatavehicleoperatoris complying with a court order and for protecting public safety.

1 TheChildPassengerProtectionAct(Chapter496oftheLawsof2009)iscommonlyreferredtoasLeandra’sLaw,whichamendedprovisionsoftheVehicleandTrafficLaw(VTL),ExecutiveLawandPenalLaw.ProvisionsaddressingtheignitioninterlockdevicebecameeffectiveAugust15,2010,andChapter169oftheLawsof2013,whichstrengthenscertainprovisionsofLeandra’sLaw,tookeffectonNovember1,2013(seeAppendixCforadditionaldetail).Afterthisauditbegan,thePenalLawwasfurtheramendedtoprovidethatwhenacourtsentenceincludesaconditionthatanIIDbeinstalledandmaintainedbyadefendant,andthecourtlaterdeclaresthatindividualtobedelinquent,theconditiontohavetheIIDinstalledcontinuestobeineffectduringtheperiodofdelinquency.ThecourtmayalsoextendtheperiodoftheIIDinstallationbytheperiodofthedelinquency(seeChapter440oftheLawsof2015,effectiveNovember20,2015).

2 SeeVTLSections1193,1198;seealsoExecutiveLawSection259-c.3 SeeVTLSection1193(1)(g)and9NYCRRPart358–HandlingofIgnitionInterlockCasesInvolvingCertainCriminal

Offenders.4 Thismayincludethecounty,city,townorvillagecourts.


Scope and Objective

TheobjectiveofourauditwastodetermineifcountiesusingpublicresourcesfortheState’sIgnitionInterlockProgramwereadequatelymonitoringtheprogramtohelpensurethesafetyofthepublic,fortheperiodJanuary1,2010throughMay29,2015.Ourauditaddressedthefollowingrelatedquestion:

• AretheapplicablecountydepartmentsadequatelymonitoringtheIgnitionInterlockProgramtoensureproperIIDinstallationanduse,andareofficialscomplyingwithreportingrequirements?

Audit Results

EachcountyinouraudithadaprocessformonitoringIIDinstallationsandnegativeactivities5 of an operator,andgenerallyworkedwiththeoperatorstohelpensurecompliance.However,thecountyofficialsresponsibledidnotalwaysreportviolationstotheappropriatecourtanddistrictattorneyasrequired.

Ourexaminationof682casesrequiringcourt-orderedIIDinstallationsfoundthat66operators,whoindicatedtheyownedoroperatedavehicle,didnotcomplywithprogramregulationsbecausetheyeither installed the IIDs late or did not install them at all.6 The monitors were late in reporting 14 of thosecases(inErieandWayne)anddidnotreport50casesatall(inCortland,Erie,Montgomery,Otsego,SuffolkandWayne).Infourothercases(inMontgomeryandSuffolk),vehicleswereinfactregistered to individuals who had indicated they did not own or operate a vehicle during the court-orderedIIDperiod.Therespectivemonitorsdidnotreportthesecases,twoofwhichtheyconfirmed.Wefoundnorecordofattemptstoverifytheothertwo.

Additionally, noneof the six counties consistentlyprovidednotifications to the courts anddistrictattorneysofoperatorswithnegativeIIDactivity.Ofthe215caseswithinstalledIIDs,7 70 cases had negative IIDactivity.Fifty-fiveof the70cases (79percent)wereeithernot reported (inCortland,Erie,Montgomery,OtsegoandSuffolk)ornotreportedinatimelymanner(inCortland,SuffolkandWayne).

WhileIIDspotentiallystopindividualsfromstartinganddrivingtheirvehiclewithaBAChigherthan0.025percent,8 county monitoring helps to ensure an individual is following sentencing conditions andprotectsthepublic.AfailuretoadequatelymonitortheIIDprogramandreportviolationscouldprevent a court from knowing about noncompliance and therefore deciding whether to modify or revokeanindividual’ssentencetokeeptheroadwayssafe.

Comments of Local Officials

The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed with local officials and theircomments,whichappearinAppendixA,havebeenconsideredinpreparingthisreport.5 Forauditpurposes,anegativeevent(activity)istheresultofanindividual’sactionsthatarenotincompliancewithlistedeventsin9NYCRRSection358.7(d)(1).

6 ForthoseinstanceswhereindividualsdidnotinstalltheIIDs,themonitorseitherverifiedthattheydisposedoftheirvehicles during the installation period (two cases) or reported the failure to install IIDs (12 cases).

7 SeeAppendixBfordetails.8 See9NYCRRSection358.5(c)(2).


Background

Introduction

Alcohol consumption can change an individual’s judgment,coordinationandabilitytodriveavehicle.AccordingtotheGovernor’sTrafficSafetyCommission, therewereabout7,000alcohol-relatedautomobileaccidentsinNewYorkState(excludingNewYorkCity)in2013,asshowninFigure1.

Figure 1: Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Crashes in New York StateAudited Counties 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cortland 41 42 52 48

Erie 561 604 556 548

Montgomery 62 54 33 46

Otsego 66 52 56 56

Suffolk 802 902 872 853

Wayne 68 75 55 54

Subtotal – Audited Counties 1,600 1,729 1,624 1,605

Other Counties 5,839 5,602 5,708 5,396

State Total (excluding NYC) 7,439 7,331 7,332 7,001

“Leandra’sLaw,”aNewYorkStatelawenactedNovember18,2009,9

isintendedtoprotectthesafetyofthepublic.Itrequires,amongotherthings,that–asaconditionofbeingsentencedforcertainalcohol-relatedoffensesoccurringonorafterAugust15,2010–aconvictedindividual install and maintain a breath alcohol IID on any vehicle owned or operated by that individual for a certain period of time.10

AnIIDinstalledinavehiclerequirestheoperatortoprovideabreathsample in order to start the vehicle. The vehicle will not start if the deviceregistersthedriver’sblood-alcohollevelaboveacertainpre-setlimit.Duringthetrip,driversarealsopromptedtoblowintothedevice at unknown intervals to ensure they have not been drinking after the vehicle has started. IIDs are equipped with recording

9 Chapter496oftheLawsof2009iscommonlyreferredtoasLeandra’sLaw,whichamendedprovisionsoftheVehicleandTrafficLaw(VTL),ExecutiveLawandPenalLaw.ProvisionsaddressingtheignitioninterlockdevicebecameeffectiveAugust15,2010,andChapter169oftheLawsof2013,whichstrengthenscertainprovisionsofLeandra’sLaw,tookeffectonNovember1,2013(seeAppendixC for additional detail. See alsoChapter 440of theLawsof 2015, effectiveNovember20,2015).

10SeeVTLSections1193,1198;seealsoExecutiveLawSection259-c.


devices that capture the number of times the automobile was started orattemptedtobestarted, theoperator’sbloodalcohollevelat thetimeanattemptwasmadetostartthevehicle,andthedurationtheautomobile was driven during the monitoring period to deter drinking and driving.

TheNewYorkStateDivisionofCriminalJusticeServices(DCJS)hasregulations for counties and others establishing standards for the usage and monitoring of IIDs ordered by criminal courts for these alcohol-related sentences.11 County probation departments are responsible for monitoring court-ordered IIDs for individuals sentenced to probation. Those sentenced to a conditional discharge are monitored by a county-designateddepartment,12individualorentity,whichmayalsobethecounty probation department. Monitoring is a key component for ensuring that a vehicle operator is complying with a court order and for protecting public safety.

Installationandactivityrequirementsthatmustbemonitoredincludethefollowing:13

• ThemonitorshallreceivenotificationofanorderfortheIIDwithinfivebusinessdaysofsentencing.

• The operator is required to have an IID installed within10 business days of the court order or if sentenced to imprisonment,uponreleasefromimprisonment,whicheverisapplicable.

• Theoperatorshallsubmittoservicevisitsatdefinedintervals(seeAppendixCfordetails).

• The monitor shall notify the appropriate court14 and district attorney,withinthreebusinessdays,ofthefollowing:

11SeeVTLSection1193(1)(g)and9NYCRRPart358–HandlingofIgnitionInterlock Cases Involving Certain Criminal Offenders.

12Asageneralpremise,probationisasentencingoptionforthecourtthatpermitstheoffendertoremaininthecommunityunderconditionsspecifiedbythecourt,andinvolvessomeformofsupervisionorreportingrequirement.Aconditionaldischarge is a sentencing option generally used for minor violations that do not requireprobationsupervision.Theregulationsprovide,inpart,thatthecounty’sIgnition Interlock Program plan “shall specify monitoring by the probationdepartment where the operator is subject to a period of probation supervision and maydesignateoneormorealternativepersonsorentities,inlieuoftheprobationdepartment, responsible for monitoring where an ignition interlock devicehas been imposed pursuant to a conditional discharge” (seeNYCRR Section358.4[c]).

13See9NYCRRSection358.7.14Thismayincludethecounty,city,townorvillagecourts.


o OperatorfailuretoinstallanorderedIID;

o Operator non-compliance with a service visit requirement;

o Any report of alleged tampering with or circumventing oftheIIDoranattemptthereof;

o Anyreportofa lock-outmode,and/oranyreportofafailedtestorretestwhentheBACis.05percentorhigher.

AppendixCincludesmoredetailsofmonitoringrequirements.Thefailurebyan individual tocomplywith theProgrammay result inthe conditional discharge or probation sentence beingmodified orrevoked by the court.

FromAugust15,2010toDecember31,2014,therehavebeen76,727court orders received byNewYorkState counties that require theinstallation of an ignition interlock device on a vehicle owned or operated by the individual sentenced. The counties reported that 20,932 ignition interlock devices (27 percent)were installed.15Werecognize,however,theremaybereasonableexplanationsastowhyanIIDinstallationdidnotoccurinagivensituation.Forexample,Leandra’sLawnowprovidesthatanoperatormayassertunderoaththat he/she is not the owner of anymotor vehicle and that he/shewill not operate any motor vehicle during the period of interlock restrictions, except as may be otherwise authorized pursuant tolaw.16Anotherpossibilityisthattheoperator,althoughsubjecttotheinstallation requirement, no longer ownsor operates a vehicle andtherefore has not installed the device.

Weauditedsixcountiestodeterminewhethertheywereadequatelymonitoring individuals having court-ordered sentences with an IID requirementforinstallationanddeviceuse,duringtheperiodJanuary1,2010throughMay29,2015.Ourauditfocusedontheobligationsof over 16,900 individualswith court-sentenced IID requirements.AsshowninFigure2,probationcaseswithacourt-orderedIIDareassigned tostaff in theProbationDepartment forcasesupervision,which includes monitoring IID installation and activity. Conditional discharge cases are monitored by specific individuals designated

15New York State Ignition Interlock Annual Statistics: 2010-2014 available athttp://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/pdfs/Ignition-Interlock-Annual-Statistics-2010-2014.pdf

16 See Chapter 169 Laws of 2013.


Objective

Scope andMethodology

by each county: probation officers or assistants, staff of a countydepartment,orathird-partyvendor.

Figure 2: County Population, IID Court Orders and Designated Monitors

County Approximate Population

Court Ordersa

(August 15, 2010- March 31, 2015)

Designated Monitor of Probation Cases

Requiring IID

Designated Monitor of Conditional Discharge

Cases Requiring IID

Cortland 49,000 406 Probation Department Probation Department

Erie 920,000 4,696 Probation Department County Stop DWI

Montgomery 50,000 322 Probation Department District Attorney

Otsego 62,000 322 Probation Department Third-Party Vendor

Suffolk 1,500,000 10,010 Probation Department Probation Department

Wayne 93,000 1,167 Probation Department Probation Department

a Per “New York State Total Program Report August 15, 2010 – March 31, 2015” available at http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/pdfs/

IID-Total-Program-Report-thru-March-31-2015.pdf

Oncean IID is installed, thevendornotifies themonitorofdeviceusageandnegativeactivity.Suchnotificationcanbeofallactivityornegativeactivityonly.Thevendor’sdeviceactivityreportgenerallyincludesarecordofthedate,time,testresults,cameraimagesandthevehicle’smappedlocation.ThemonitorcanreviewtheIIDcameraimages to help determine who provided each breath sample and potentially ascertain whether the result was inaccurate or if a violation in fact occurred. The monitor also may contact the individual directly togainanunderstandingofwhatoccurred,whichservesasadeterrentby letting the individual know the activity is being watched.

The objective of our audit was to determine if counties using public resourcesfortheState’sIgnitionInterlockProgramwereadequatelymonitoring the program to help ensure the safety of the public. Our auditaddressedthefollowingrelatedquestion:

• Aretheapplicablecountydepartmentsadequatelymonitoringthe Ignition Interlock Program to ensure proper IIDinstallationanduse,andareofficialscomplyingwithreportingrequirements?

FortheperiodJanuary1,2010throughMay29,2015,weinterviewedcountyofficialsandstaff,reviewedpoliciesandprocedures,identifiedtheprogramrequirements,andreviewedsamplesofcounties’courtorders and information that the counties maintained for their IID records. We tested individual names against public records andexaminedcommunicationstoensurecompliancewiththemonitoringregulations for the Ignition InterlockProgram.TheOtsegoCounty


conditionaldischargecaseswereexcludedfromourtestingbecausethatcounty’sprobationdepartmentcontractedformonitoringserviceswith a third-party vendor.

We conducted our audit in accordance with generally acceptedgovernment auditing standards (GAGAS). More information on such standards and the methodology used in performing this audit is includedinAppendixBofthisreport.Unlessotherwiseindicatedinthisreport,samplesfortestingwereselectedbasedonprofessionaljudgment,asitwasnottheintenttoprojecttheresultsontotheentirepopulation.Where applicable, information is presented concerningthe value and/or size of the relevant population and the sampleselectedforexamination.

The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed withlocalofficialsandtheircomments,whichappearinAppendixA,have been considered in preparing this report.

Comments ofLocal Officials


Monitoring

TheState’sIgnitionInterlockProgramrequirescountiestomonitorthe installation and use of Ignition Interlock Devices (IID) and report instances of noncompliance to the courts and district attorneys. Countymonitorsshouldhaveknowledgeoftheregulations,theirroleandresponsibilities,andthemonitoringandreportingprocess.

We tested the monitoring of 682 court-ordered IID installationsduring theauditperiod.Allsixcounties inouraudithadaprocessformonitoringinstallationsandnegativeIIDactivitiesofoperators,andgenerallyworkedwithoperatorstoensurecompliance.However,county-designatedofficialsresponsibleforsuchmonitoringdidnotconsistently report operator violations to the appropriate court and districtattorneyasrequired.

Ofthe66installationviolationsinourtest(52IIDsinstalledlateand14 IIDs not installed17), themonitors reportedviolations late in14cases(21percent)anddidnotreport50violationsatall(76percent).Ofthe50casesthatwerenotreported,twoindividualsneverinstalledanIIDasorderedbythecourt.Infourothercases,vehicleswereinfact registered to individuals who had indicated they did not own or operate a vehicle during the court-ordered IID period. The respective monitorsdidnotreportthesecases,twoofwhichtheyconfirmed.Wefound no record of attempts to verify the other two.

Of the 215 cases with installed IIDs,18 70 cases had negative IID activity. The monitors reported 17 of the 70 cases (24 percent) late anddidnotreport38cases(54percent)atall.

A county is required to report to the appropriate court anddistrictattorneywhenanindividual,whoissentencedwithacourtorderthatrequiresanIIDinstallationandwhoownsoroperatesavehicle,doesnot install an IID within 10 business days of the court order or (if sentenced to imprisonment) upon release from imprisonment.

The counties generally monitored the IID installation activities of operators.All six counties had caseswith IID installations andinstallations that occurred both within and after the 10 business day installation period.We selected 682 court orders with an IIDrequirement for testing,19 of which 231 cases indicated a vehicle

Reporting of IID Installation Violations

17ForthoseinstanceswhereindividualsdidnotinstalltheIIDs,themonitorseitherverifiedthat theydisposedoftheirvehiclesduringtheinstallationperiod(twocases) or reported the failure to install IIDs (12 cases).

18SeeAppendixBfordetails.19 Ibid.


was owned or operated. Sixty-six devices were installed late ornot installed: 52 after 10businessdays and14not at all.The lateinstallations ranged from two to 30 days after the 10-business-day period.In451ofthe682cases,individualsindicatedtheydidnotownoroperateavehicle,andthereforedidnotinstalladevice;however,fourofthesecases,intwocounties(MontgomeryandSuffolk),didhaveavehicleduringtheIIDorderperiod,asshowninFigure3.

Figure 3: IID Installations

County Total IID Orders Tested

Indicated Vehicle Owned or Operated

Where Vehicles Were Indicated Indicated

No Vehicle Owned or Operated

No Vehicle Indicated but Found RegisteredIID Installed

LateIID Not

Installed

Cortland 60 25 3 1 35 0

Erie 201 60 17 12 141 0

Montgomery 56 14 5 1 42 1

Otsegoa 34 8 1 0 26 0

Suffolk 250 82 21 0 168 3

Wayne 81 42 5 0 39 0

Total 682b 231c

52 14 451 4

a Probation cases only b Composed of 401 conditional discharge cases and 281 probation casesc Composed of 165 conditional discharge cases and 66 probation cases

For one of the four cases in which the individuals indicated they did not have a vehicle, the monitor at Montgomery told us thatno vehiclewas observed during homevisits.However, during ourauditfieldwork,themonitorlearnedofanownedvehiclethroughaprobation investigation, but did not report the operator’s failure toinstallanIID.Further,ourauditfoundthattwoconditional-dischargecases in Suffolk had vehicles registered in another state. Although the case file showed an out-of-state address for these cases, nodocumentation was available to show that the monitor contacted the otherstatetodetermineifavehiclewasowned,andthecaseswerenotreported.Intheremainingcase(Suffolk),themonitoridentifiedvehicles registered in the State to the individual but did not report this tothecourtinatimelymanner,ortothedistrictattorneyatall.

Todetermineifthecounties’monitorsreportedinstallationviolations,weexaminedthe231courtordersthathadanIIDrequirementandwhen a vehicle was indicated as owned or operated. Of the 66 instances whentheIIDwasinstalledeitherlateornotatall,themonitorsdidnotmeetreportingrequirementsfor64cases(97percent),asshownin Figure 4.


Figure 4: County Reporting of IID Installation Violations

CountyTotal IID Installation

Violations (Device Not Installed or Installed Late)

Not Reported Reported Late

Cortland 4 4 0

Erie 29 14 13

Montgomery 6 6 0

Otsegoa 1 1 0

Suffolk 21 21 0

Wayne 5 4 1

Total 66 50 14a Probation cases only

In twoof the 50 unreported cases (inCortland andMontgomery),the individual did not install an IID when a vehicle was owned by thatindividual.However,duringthetimeinwhichtheindividualwasrequired tohave the IID installed, thevehicleswereeither soldorindicated as repossessed,with appropriate documentation. In Erie,the 12 cases that did not have an IID installed (see Figure 3) were reportedbythemonitortothecourts,onecaseontimeand11casesonaverage18dayslate.

The reporting activities associated with the installation violations varied. County officials indicated they generally worked with theindividualson timely installationof the IID.However, thevolumeof their cases could impact whether a report is processed when an individual does not install a device within the 10-business-day installation period. When monitors fail to report violations in atimelymanneroratall,thecourtsmaybeunawareofthesentencedindividual’snoncompliancewiththeirorders.Thiscouldpotentiallyplace the public at an increased risk of harm.

An IID vendor provides device activity to the county for use in monitoring.When a county’smonitor receives a notification froman IID vendor, the monitor is able to review the individual’s IIDhistory and investigate the detail for reportable negative activity. The monitor should report the resulting violations to the appropriate court and district attorney.

Thesixcountiesgenerallymonitored thenegative IIDactivitiesofoperators. However, none of them consistently reported negative

Reporting of Negative IID Activity


events20tothecourtsanddistrictattorneys.WeselectedandreviewedtheIIDactivityof215caseswithaninstalledIIDtodetermineifthemonitors reported the negative IID activity to the courts and district attorneys in a timelymanner.Of the 215 cases, 70 had reportablenegativeactivity,ofwhich55cases(79percent)werereportedlateornotatall(Figure5).

20A “negative event” is counted each time an individual’s actions are not incompliancewithlistedeventsin9NYCRRSection358.7(d)(1).Forexample,eachofthefollowingiscountedasaseparate“event”foratotalofthreenegativeevents even though the threeeventsoccur inoneattempt to start avehicle: abreathsampleisgivenataBACof0.05percentorhigher,asampleisnotgivenforare-test,andalock-outresults.

Figure 5: County Reporting of IID Negative Activity

Forthe55casesreportedlateornotatall,Figure6showstheaveragenumberofdaysbeyondthe10-dayrequirementthatittookmonitorsto report the negative activity. It also shows the number of negative events found for each case.

7

23

42

24

107

23

41

18

2

0

10

20

30

Cortland Erie Montgomery Otsego Suffolk Wayne

Cases Reported Late or Not Reported

Total # Cases With Reportable Negative Activity

Total # Cases Monitor Reported Late or Did Not Report


Figure 6: Reportable Negative IID Activity

County Cases Not Reported

Cases Reported

Late

Average Days Cases

Reported Late

Total Negative Events Not Reported or

Reported Late

Cortland 4 3 8 30

Erie 23 0 NA 97

Montgomery 4 0 NA 35

Otsegoa 1 0 NA 6

Suffolk 6 12 6 43

Wayne 0 2 7 28

Total 38 17 239a Probation cases only

Many of these negative events were one instance of providing a breathsampleintoanIIDtostartavehicle.However,therealsoweremultiple attempts to start a vehicle over the IID period while having aBAChigherthan0.05.Thefollowingexampleswerenotreported:

• InMontgomery,anindividualsentencedonJune12,2014hadfournegativeIIDeventsthatoccurredonJune30,September8,November5,2014andFebruary16,2015.TheBAClevelsranged from 0.106 to 0.129.

• InErie,anindividualsentencedonAugust4,2014hadtwonegative events that occurred on October 11 and December 15,2014.BAClevelsreportedrangedfrom0.051to0.151.

Most county monitors generally understood the requirement tomonitor negative IID activity. However, theMontgomerymonitorwas unaware of this requirement. We found four conditionaldischargecasesinMontgomery,with35negativeIIDevents,whichwerenotreported to thecourts. InErie, themonitorofconditionaldischarge cases told us that only cases with a pattern of negative activityarereportedtothecourts,asagreedtobetweenthecountyand appropriate court.However, therewasno evidence thatErie’s23 conditional discharge cases with negative activity, totaling 97negativeIIDevents,werereportedtothecourtanddistrictattorney.Multiple negative events such as these may indicate a pattern of behavior that should be reported.

Several counties indicated that at times a court or district attorney will instructamonitor to stop these reports. Inaddition,othercounties


citedaneedforthecourtstobetterunderstandthecourts’impactonthemonitor’sfunctionandthereportingrequirements.Forexample,thecounties indicated that court paperwork that is late or incomplete can delaythemonitoringprocess.Additionally,inmonitoringprobationcases, the provisions of the IID regulations sometimes causedconfusionforcounties.Aspartofprobationsupervision,graduatedsanctions (for example, verbalwarningsor face-to-facevisitswiththeprobationofficer) couldbe administered to a case fornegativeIIDactivity;however,theregulationsalsoprovidethatthemonitornotify the appropriate court and district attorney of certain negative IIDevents.Severalcountyofficials indicated that they thought theadministration of graduated sanctions was a sufficient alternativeto reporting certain negative IID events to the courts and district attorneys. In addition, someofficials indicated therewas a lackofspecificguidancefromtheStateforimplementingtheIIDprogram.

WhileanIIDpreventsavehiclefromstarting,thedistrictattorneyandcourtcannotassessan individual’sbehaviororconsidermodifyingthe sentence if the monitor fails to report the events.

1. DepartmentofficialsshouldreportallIIDProgramviolationsto the courts and district attorneys in a timely manner.

Recommendation


APPENDIX A

RESPONSE FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS

Weprovidedadraftcopyofthisglobalreporttothesixcountiesweauditedandrequestedresponses.Wealsoprovidedadraftversionof the respective individual letter reports toeachof thecountiesandreceivedresponsesfromallofthem.Eachcounty’srespectiveletterreportincludesthecounty’sresponsetoourauditand,insomeinstances,ourcommentsonissuesraised.

Allsixcountiesrespondedtothedraftofthisglobalreport.Twooftheresponses(OtsegoandSuffolk)were not global in nature. The following comments are excerpted from the other four responses(Cortland,Erie,MontgomeryandWayne).

County Reporting Requirements

CortlandCounty:“WithregardtoreportingnegativeIgnitionInterlockDeviceActivity,Ibelievethatit would be appropriate for the rule to differentiate between having to notify the court of reports of a ‘lock-out’asopposedtoatemporary‘lock-out.’”

ErieCounty:“Itwasourconcernthatautomaticnotificationofeventsthatdonotinvolvedrinkinganddrivingortamperingrisks[are]distractingthecourtandotherpartnersfromimportantnoticesrequiringimmediateaction.”

MontgomeryCounty:“...[I]thasbeenourpracticetofirstinvestigatenegativeeventsasthereareat timesmitigating factors that influence the elevatedBAC in some instances. Itwould thereforeseemprudentthatnotallnegativeeventsrequirenotificationtotheCountyandDistrictAttorneyif,followingdocumentedandcompetentinvestigation,thereisnoverifiableinfraction.”

Timeliness

Cortland County: “With regard to installations that occurred after 10 business days it should berecognized that the process is not always expedient due to the transfer of supervision to anotherCountyorStateandfindinganinstallationsitecanbedifficultespeciallywhenpartialpayorwaiverof payment has been ordered by the Court. Timeliness on the part of the Court to submit the order for IgnitionInterlocktothemonitoringagencyisalsocrucialtohavingtheinterlockdeviceinstalled.”

MontgomeryCounty:“Severalissuesidentifiedinthereporthavebeenandcontinuetobeexaminedregardingautomobileownershipanddelaysininstallationoftheignitioninterlock,althoughthetimelyreceipt of Court orders for ignition interlock from various Courts continues to be an issue plaguing this compliance.”

Wayne County: “. . . [T]he areas of noncompliance such as the reporting of negative activity ornotification to the courts andDAmay or not bewithin the controls of the departments alone forconsistent compliancy. A shared complaint by the departments is that our counterparts within the justice systemeitherdirectlyorindirectlydelaydocumentationtotherespectiveprobationdepartments.”


APPENDIX B

AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS

To achieve our audit objective and obtain valid audit evidence, we performed the followingprocedures:

• WeinterviewedcountystaffinvolvedintheIIDprogramforgeneralbackgroundinformationandpolicies/proceduresinplacewithrespecttoIIDusageandmonitoringthecomplianceofindividuals subject to installation of IID.

• TodetermineifdepartmentsaremonitoringtheIIDProgramforbothconditionaldischargeandprobationcases,weobtainedthelistofindividualswithacourt-orderedsentencetoinstallanIID.Toverifyreliability,wecomparedthislist,whichwaspulledfromthecountyrecords,totheNewYorkStateOfficeofCourtAdministration(UnifiedCourtSystem)recordsshowingrequiredIIDs.

• Ofthe5,450caseswithanIIDrequirement,21wesampledatotalof682cases,401conditionaldischargeand281probationcasesreportedbythecounty,tofocusoncurrentimpacttothepublic.Wesortedthelistforthesamplebyseparatingconditionaldischargefromprobationcasesandjudgmentallyselectingamixofcasesbasedontheresponsibledesignatedmonitors(i.e., Probation Department, County Stop DWI, district attorney or third-party vendor).Formonitors identifiedasa third-partyvendor, testingwasexcluded.Weexaminedrelatedsupporting documentation in each individual file (hardcopy and electronic formats whenavailable) to determine timing of installation of an IID and communications between the monitorandthecourts/districtattorneys.Wemetwithcountystafftounderstandtheactionstaken for negative IID activity related to a case22 and the communications between the monitor andthecourts/districtattorneys.

• For thecases sampled thatwere identifiedbycourtdocumentationasnothavingavehicleandwherenoIIDwasinstalled,weusedsoftwaretoolstodetermineiftheindividualhadanyvehicle registered.23

WeconductedthisperformanceauditinaccordancewithGAGAS.Thosestandardsrequirethatweplanandperform theaudit toobtainsufficient,appropriateevidence toprovidea reasonablebasisforourfindingsandconclusionsbasedonourauditobjective.Webelievethattheevidenceobtainedprovidesareasonablebasisforourfindingsandconclusionsbasedonourauditobjective.

21TheoveralltimeperiodwasfromJanuary2013throughMay2015,butwasdifferentforeachcountydependingonwhenfieldworkwasstartedandcompleted.

22Oftheoriginal682casessampled,negativeactivitywasreviewedforallcaseswithanIIDinstalled.Ifcasesselectedwereclosedanddeviceactivitywasunavailable,replacementcaseswereselected.Asaresult,weselectedandreviewedtheIIDactivityof215cases.

23 The software accesses only public records reported in electronic format.


APPENDIX C

CERTAIN DEFINITIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS24

Definitions

“Ignition Interlock Device”–Anybloodalcoholconcentrationequivalencemeasuringdevicewhichconnects to a motor vehicle ignition system and prevents a motor vehicle from being started without firstdeterminingthroughadeeplungbreathsamplethattheoperator’sequivalentbloodalcoholleveldoesnotexceed thecalibratedsettingon thedeviceas requiredbystandardsof thedepartmentofhealth.

“Monitor”–Thelocalprobationdepartmentwheretheoperatorisundertheprobationsupervisionoranyperson(s)orentity(ies)designatedinthecounty’signitioninterlockprogramplanforanyoperatorgranted conditional discharge.

Monitoring Requirements Minimum standards for the usage and monitoring of ignition interlock devices imposed by a criminal courtforafelonyormisdemeanorundertheVehicleandTrafficLaworPenalLawareprovided,inpart,asfollows.

o Anymonitorshallreceivenotificationpursuanttoitscountyplanofalloperatorswhichithasresponsibilitytomonitorwithinfivebusinessdaysofthesentencingcourt’sorderimposingtheconditionofanignitioninterlockdeviceandofanoperator’sreleasefromimprisonment.Suchmonitorshallobtainproofofinstallationbytheoperatorandinstallation/serviceprovider.

o Everyoperatorshallhaveinstalledandmaintainafunctioningignitioninterlockdeviceinanyvehicle(s) he or she owns or operates within 10 business days of the condition being imposed bythecourtorifsentencedtoimprisonmentuponreleasefromimprisonment,whicheverisapplicable;withinthreebusinessdaysofinstallation,submitproofofinstallationtothecourt,countyprobationdepartment,andanyotherdesignatedmonitor.

o Qualifiedmanufacturersnotifythemonitorandcountyprobationdepartmentwhenanignitioninterlockdevicehasbeeninstalledonanoperator’svehicle(s)withinthreebusinessdaysofinstallation.Where amonitor learns that the operator owns or operates amotor vehicle inwhichanIIDhasbeeninstalled,themonitormayissueletterofde-installationdirectlytotheinstallation/serviceproviderwhichauthorizesremovalofthedevice.Themonitorselectstheclass of IID and features to be used in the county.

o Upon learningof the followingevents: (i) that theoperatorhas failed tohave installed theignition interlockdeviceonhis/herownvehicle(s)orvehicle(s)whichhe/sheoperates; (ii)

24SeeTitle9NYCRRPart358,HandlingofIgnitionInterlockCasesInvolvingCertainCriminalOffenders,availableontheDCJSwebsite:http://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/opca/ignition.htm.


that theoperatorhasnotcompliedwithservicevisits requirements; (iii)a reportofallegedtamperingwith or circumventing an ignition interlock device or an attempt thereof; (iv) areportofafailedstart-upre-test;(v)areportofamissedstart-upre-test;(vi)areportofafailedrollingre-test;(vii)areportofamissedrollingre-test;and/or(viii)areportofalockoutmode;theapplicablemonitorshalltakeappropriateactionconsistentwithpublicsafety.Whereunderprobationsupervision,thecountyprobationdepartmentshalladheretoPart352.Withrespecttoanyoperatorsentencedtoconditionaldischarge,themonitorshalltakeactioninaccordancewiththeprovisionsofitscountyignitioninterlockprogramplan.Ataminimum,anymonitorshallnotifytheappropriatecourtanddistrictattorney,withinthree(3)businessdays,whereanoperatorhasfailedtohaveinstalledtheignitioninterlockdeviceonhis/herownvehicle(s)orvehicle(s)whichhe/sheoperates,wheretheoperatorhasnotcompliedwithaservicevisitrequirement,anyreportofallegedtamperingwithorcircumventinganignitioninterlockdeviceoranattemptthereof,anyreportofalock-outmode,and/oranyreportofafailedtestorre-testwheretheBACis0.05percentorhigher.Themonitormayrecommendamodificationtotheoperator’sconditionofhisorhersentenceorrelease.whicheverisapplicableasotherwiseauthorizedbylaw,includinganextensiontotheIIDperiod,arequirementthattheoperatorattendalcoholandsubstanceabusetreatmentand/ordrinkinganddrivingprogram,referraltothe Department of Motor Vehicles to determine whether the department may suspend or revoke theoperator’slicense,orrecommendrevocationofsentenceorrelease.WheretheoperatorisundersupervisionbytheDivisionofParole,themonitorshallcoordinatemonitoringwiththeDivision and promptly provide the parole agency with reports of any failed tasks or failed tests.

o Anymonitormaydisseminaterelevantcaserecords,includingfailedtasksorfailedreportsnot

otherwisesealedorspecificallyrestrictedintermsofaccessbystateorfederallawto,amongothers,appropriatelawenforcementauthorities.Inallsuchinstances,thosetowhomaccesshasbeengrantedshallnotsecondarilydisclosesuchinformationwithouttheexpresswrittenpermission of the monitor that authorized access.

o Everyoperatorshallsubmittoservicevisitswithinthirty(30)calendardaysofpriorinstallationorservicevisitsforthecollectionofdatafromtheignitioninterlockdeviceand/orforinspection,maintenance,andrecalibrationpurposeswherethedevicedoesnotautomaticallytransmitdatadirectlytothemonitor;andsubmittoaninitialservicevisitwithinthirty(30)calendardaysofinstallationandservicevisitswithinsixty(60)calendardaysofpriorservicevisitswherethedeviceeitherautomaticallytransmitsdatadirectlytothemonitorforinspection,maintenance,orrecalibrationpurposesorthedeviceheadissenttothequalifiedmanufacturereverythirty(30)calendardaysforsuchpurposes, includingdatadownload.However,anoperatorshallonly remove the device head upon receipt of a new device head.

Chapter169oftheLawsof2013:

OnJuly26,2013,Chapter169oftheLawsof2013wassignedintolawtostrengthencertainprovisionsofLeandra’sLawandestablishnewsafeguards tohelpkeep impaireddriversoff the streets.ThisChaptertookeffectNovember1,2013andappliestothoseviolationscommittedonandaftersuchdate.Amongitsprovisionsareasfollows:25 25SeeLeandra’sLaw–ReformandIgnitionInterlockProgramPlanUpdates,StateofNewYorkDivisionofCriminalJusticeServices,OfficeofProbationandCorrectionalAlternatives,datedApril14,2014.


• Extendingtheperiodofinterlockrestrictiontoaminimumof12months(fromsixmonths)forindividuals convicted of certain alcohol-related offenses.26

• Authorizes imposition of IIDs to be installed prior to sentencing as a preventive measure. The periodofIIDrestrictionwillcommencefromtheearlierofthesentencingdate,orinstallationdate in advance of sentencing

• EstablishingthatacourtcanwaivetheinstallationofanIIDonlywherethedefendantassertsunderoaththathe/sheisnottheownerofanymotorvehicleandthathe/shewillnotoperateanymotor vehicle during the period of interlock restrictions, except asmay be otherwiseauthorized pursuant to law.

• EnsuringthatyouthadjudicatedasYouthfulOffendersofDWIand/orotheralcoholrelatedoffenseswillbesubjecttoLeandra’sLawprovisions,includingtheIIDrequirement.

• ExpandingupontheClassEfelony,AggravatedUnlicensedOperation1stDegreetocapture

operatorswhowere given the benefit of a conditional license after aDWI and/or alcohol-related offense and then drive impaired again.

• ClarifiesthatoperatorsprovideproofofinstallationcompliancewiththeIIDrequirementtothe court and the probation department or other monitor where such person is under probation or conditional discharge supervision.

26 VTL Section 1193(1) also provides that “such period of interlock restriction shall terminate upon submission of proof thatsuchpersoninstalledandmaintainedanignitioninterlockdeviceforatleastsixmonths,unlessthecourtorderedsuchpersontoinstallandmaintainanignitioninterlockdeviceforalongerperiodasauthorized…andspecifiedinsuchorder.”


APPENDIX D

HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE REPORT

OfficeoftheStateComptrollerPublicInformationOffice110StateStreet,15thFloorAlbany,NewYork12236(518)474-4015http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/

Toobtaincopiesofthisreport,writeorvisitourwebpage:


APPENDIX EOFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITYAndrewA.SanFilippo,ExecutiveDeputyComptroller

GabrielF.Deyo,DeputyComptrollerTraceyHitchenBoyd,AssistantComptroller

LOCAL REGIONAL OFFICE LISTING

BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICEH.ToddEames,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerStateOfficeBuilding,Suite170244 Hawley StreetBinghamton,NewYork13901-4417(607)721-8306Fax(607)721-8313Email:[email protected]

Serving:Broome,Chenango,Cortland,Delaware,Otsego,Schoharie,Sullivan,Tioga,TompkinsCounties

BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICEJeffreyD.Mazula,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptroller295MainStreet,Suite1032Buffalo,NewYork14203-2510(716)847-3647Fax(716)847-3643Email:[email protected]

Serving:Allegany,Cattaraugus,Chautauqua,Erie,Genesee,Niagara,Orleans,WyomingCounties

GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICEJeffreyP.Leonard,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerOneBroadStreetPlazaGlensFalls,NewYork12801-4396(518)793-0057Fax(518)793-5797Email:[email protected]

Serving:Albany,Clinton,Essex,Franklin,Fulton,Hamilton,Montgomery,Rensselaer,Saratoga,Schenectady,Warren,WashingtonCounties

HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICEIraMcCracken,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerNYSOfficeBuilding,Room3A10250VeteransMemorialHighwayHauppauge,NewYork11788-5533(631)952-6534Fax(631)952-6530Email:[email protected]

Serving:NassauandSuffolkCounties

NEWBURGH REGIONAL OFFICETennehBlamah,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptroller33AirportCenterDrive,Suite103NewWindsor,NewYork12553-4725(845)567-0858Fax(845)567-0080Email:[email protected]

Serving:Columbia,Dutchess,Greene,Orange,Putnam,Rockland,Ulster,WestchesterCounties

ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICEEdwardV.Grant,Jr.,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerThePowersBuilding16WestMainStreet,Suite522Rochester,NewYork14614-1608(585)454-2460Fax(585)454-3545Email:[email protected]

Serving:Cayuga,Chemung,Livingston,Monroe,Ontario,Schuyler,Seneca,Steuben,Wayne,YatesCounties

SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICERebeccaWilcox,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerStateOfficeBuilding,Room409333E.WashingtonStreetSyracuse,NewYork13202-1428(315)428-4192Fax(315)426-2119Email:[email protected]

Serving:Herkimer,Jefferson,Lewis,Madison,Oneida,Onondaga,Oswego,St.LawrenceCounties

STATEWIDE AUDITSAnnC.Singer,ChiefExaminerStateOfficeBuilding,Suite170244 Hawley Street Binghamton,NewYork13901-4417(607)721-8306Fax(607)721-8313

Documents

Ignition Interlock Program Monitoring...conditional discharge sentences. These monitors must report related violations to the appropriate court4 and district attorney as well as certain