Upload
romeo-barr
View
222
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IGNITION INTERLOCKS AND DRUNK DRIVING
Richard Roth, PhD
Arkansas Interlock Institute June 15-16,2010Sponsored by MADD and NHTSA
Research Supported ByNM TSB, NHTSA, PIRE, and RWJ
Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike RaceOne Dead, 10 Injured , June 1, 2008
2Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Roth 2/2/10 Arkansas II Institute 3
130
4
An Ignition Interlock is anElectronic 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)
5
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 12,000 offenders surveyed.
• ..But they only work if… • you get them installed.
6
I. The New Mexico Program
1. Evolution of Laws 2. Interlock Installations vs Time3. Currently Installed Interlocks vs Time4. Interlock Licenses Granted5. Comparisons to Other States
I.1. The New Mexico Laws• 1999 Optional Judicial Mandate for 2nd and 3rd DWI• 2002 Mandatory Sentence for 1st Aggravated and All
Subsequent Offenders.• 2002 Indigent Fund • 2003 Ignition Interlock License available for all revoked
offenders with no waiting period. (Admin. Prog.)• 2005 Mandatory Sentence: 1 yr for 1st; 2 yrs for 2nd; 3 yrs
for 3rd; and lifetime with 5 yr review for 4 or more.• 2005 ALR and JLR periods increased• 2009 No Unrestricted License without Interlock Period• 2010 Objective Standard for Indigency
7Roth 6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute
8Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
I.2.A
9Roth 6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Kansas Conference
12,005
I.2.B
10
9769Jun-09
6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference
12,039
4/1/10I.3.
11Roth 4/8/10 NM DWI Leadership
I.4.
12
C urrently Ins talled Interloc ks by S tateData from 9 of 10 providers ; P lot by R ic hard R oth, P hD; Aug us t 2009
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
Tex
as
Ari
zon
a
Was
hin
gto
n
Co
lora
do
New
Mex
ico
No
rth
Car
oli
na
Flo
rid
a
Cal
ifo
rnia
Mar
ylan
d
Iow
a
Illi
no
is
Vir
gin
ia
Mic
hig
an
Pen
nsy
lvan
ia
Mis
sou
ri
Oh
io
Mas
sach
use
tts
Lo
uis
ian
a
Ore
go
n
Geo
rgia
Kan
sas
New
Yo
rk
Ark
ansa
s
Okl
aho
ma
Wes
t V
irg
inia
Uta
h
Neb
rask
a
Wis
con
sin
Idah
o
Co
nn
ecti
cut
Nev
ada
New
Jer
sey
Ala
ska
Mo
nta
na
Ken
tuck
y
Wyo
min
g
Ind
ian
a
Ten
nes
see
Del
awar
e
Mis
siss
ipp
i
New
Ham
psh
ire
Min
nes
ota
So
uth
Car
oli
na
So
uth
Dak
ota
Ala
bam
a
Rh
od
e Is
lan
d
Haw
aii
No
rth
Dak
ota
Ver
mo
nt
DC
Mai
ne
Roth 6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference
Currently Installed Interlocks by StateI.5.A
13
Interlocks per 10,000 residents by stateData from 9 of 10 providers; Plot by Richard Roth, PhD;August, 2009
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
New
Mex
ico
Ari
zon
a W
ash
ing
ton
Co
lora
do
Io
wa
Mar
ylan
d
No
rth
Car
oli
na
Wes
t V
irg
inia
Tex
as
Kan
sas
Neb
rask
a O
reg
on
Vir
gin
ia
Ark
ansa
s
Lo
uis
ian
a U
tah
Mis
sou
ri
Ala
ska
Wyo
min
g
Okl
aho
ma
Flo
rid
a M
ich
igan
Illi
no
is
Mas
sach
use
tts
Idah
o
Mo
nta
na
Pen
nsy
lvan
ia
Oh
io
Geo
rgia
Nev
ada
Cal
ifo
rnia
Wis
con
sin
C
on
nec
ticu
t
New
Yo
rk
Del
awar
e
Ken
tuck
y N
ew J
erse
y
So
uth
Dak
ota
N
ew H
amp
shir
e
Ind
ian
a T
enn
esse
e
Mis
siss
ipp
i
Min
nes
ota
S
ou
th C
aro
lin
a
Rh
od
e Is
lan
d
Ver
mo
nt
No
rth
Dak
ota
A
lab
ama
Haw
aii DC
Mai
ne
Roth 6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference
Per Capita Interlocks by StateI.5.B
14
I.5.C
I.5.D The NHTSA Measure
Roth 6/13/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute 15
16
II. Measures of Effectiveness1. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction3. Overall Statewide Recidivism vs Time4. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes5. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries6. Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities7. Correlation between Interlocks Installed and
Measures of Drunk Driving8. New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM9. Opinions of Interlocked Offenders
04/18/23Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 17
II.1.A Interlocked Offenders Have Much Less Recidivism In the Year After a DWI Arrest
128,314 NM (ZIP) Residents arrested 2002-2008. IID are those who installed interlock within 1 year of arrest.
Roth 4/25/10 NM DWI Leadership 18
II.1.B Interlocked Offenders Have Much Less Recidivism In the Two Years After a DWI Arrest
109,897 NM (ZIP) Residents arrested 2002-2007. IID are those who installed interlock within 1 year of arrest
Roth 4/25/2010 NM DWI Leadership 19
II.1.C DWI Re-Arrests Substantially Reduced
20Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
II.1.D Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM
21Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
II.2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction
22Roth 2009 NHTSA/MADD Denver II Institute
II.3. Overall DWI Recidivism
23Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
II.4.
24Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
II.5.
25Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
II.6.A.
Roth 2/2/10 Arkansas II Institute 26
130
II.6.B.
27Roth 4/27/10 NM DWI Leadership
II.7.
28
II.8.
38 % Reduction
29
Survey of 1513 Interlocked Offenders
• 88% Helpful in avoiding another DWI• 83% Helpful at reducing their drinking• 89% Effective at reducing their drunk driving• 70% Cost-Effective..benefits outweigh the costs• 80% A Fair Sanction For DWI Offenders• 72% All convicted DWI’s should have interlocks• 63% All arrested DWI’s should have interlocks.
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
II.9.
30
III. INTERLOCK PROGRAMS
1. Identify Goals2. Increase Incentives3. Eliminate Hoops4. Close Loopholes5. Triage Sanctions6. Research
31
III.1. Identify Goals Effective, Cost-Effective, and Fair
Reduction of Drunk Driving.
• Get interlocks installed ASAP after DWI.
• Get all offenders to install.
• Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of changed behavior.
32
III.2. Increase the Incentives
• Right to Drive Legally• Right to Re-register Vehicle• Avoid Electronic Sobriety Monitoring• Avoid Jail• Satisfy one requirement for an Unrestricted
License• Deferred prosecution
33
III.3. Eliminate the Hoops
• Period of Hard Revocation• Fines and Fees Paid• Outstanding legal obligations• Alcohol Screening and Assessment• Medical Evaluation• DWI School• Victim Impact Panel• Community Service
34
III.4. Close Loopholes
• Waiting out Revocation Period.• “No Car” or “Not Driving” Excuse.• Driving While Revoked.• Driving a non-interlocked vehicle.• Warrants for Non-compliance
35
III.5. Triage Up in Sanctions• Extension of Interlock Period• Photo Interlock• Home Photo Breathalyzer• SCRAM• Treatment• House Arrest• Jail
36
III.6. ResearchMeasures of Effectiveness
• Interlocks per Arrested Offender• Recidivism of Interlocked vs Not Interlocked.• Reduction in Overall Recidivism.• Reduction in DWI Crashes.• Reduction in DWI Injuries.• Reduction in DWI Fatalities.
IV. 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 3-4 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.
• Given a choice, most offenders choose revocation over interlock …and they keep driving after drinking.
37Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
V. Loopholes that Remain in NM
1. “No Car” or “Not Driving” excuse SB308 20092. No interlock between arrest and adjudication
(Learning, DWI, Absconding) SB270 20093. Ineffective Penalty for DWR ..SB307 20094. Possibility of waiting out revocation period
without installing an interlock5. No Objective Standard for Indigency6. Insufficient Funding: Increase Alcohol Excise Tax7. Refusals….Enforce Implied Consent.. BAC
38Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Loopholes that Remain in NM
V.1. “No Car” or “Not Driving”
39
The FIX1. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring:
A. As a condition of ProbationB. For all who claim “No Car” or “Not DrivingC. For the same period and cost as an interlockD. Paid for by the offenderE. Minimum of morning and evening checks per day.F. Eg. Smart Start IN-HOM Photo Breathalyzer.
2. A fee equal to the cost of an interlock to be used for supervised probation.
Expected ResultMore Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving
Task Force
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Loopholes that Remain in NM
V.2. No Interlock Between Arrest and Adjudication.
40
The FIX 1. Immobilization or Interlock between Arrest and Adjudication or2. Void Vehicle Registration on Arrest (unless interlock is installed or
arrest is successfully appealed) or3. Interlock as a condition of bond
Expected ResultMore Interlocks, Less Absconding, Fewer DWI’s between Arrest
and Adjudication
The Problem: A. Some Offenders re-offend between arrest and adjudicationB. Some offenders abscond. i.e. they are a flight risk.C. Offenders learn that they can drive while revoked with a low probability of
apprehension
Task Force
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Loopholes that Remain in NM
V.3. Ineffective Penalty for DWRToo Strong..Not Applied
41
The FIX (SB 307)
Vehicle Forfeiture for Driving While Revoked without an Interlock
Expected ResultMore Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving
Compromise-Task ForceRoth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Loopholes that Remained in NMV.4. Offenders Wait Out the
Revocation Period without Interlock
42
The FIX SB 275No Unrestricted License without a period of Interlock
• All those revoked for DWI • must have a minimum of 6 months of driving with an interlock and an
interlock license, and• Must fulfill any Judicial Interlock Mandate• Before they are eligible for an unrestricted license.
Expected ResultMore Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving
SB 275 Became NM Law July 1, 2009Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
43
V.5. With No Objective Standard, NM Judges Certify up to 35% as Indigent.
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 43
44
VI. Myths About First Offenders
1. First Offenders Drove Drunk Once2. Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics3. Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem4. Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested5. Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities6. Interlocks are not cost-effective for them7. Interlocks are a not a fair sanction for them8. Interlocks are not effective for them9. Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them.10. Sanctions are more important than prevention.
45
They have driven an average of 500 times after drinking before their first arrest.
VI.1First Offenders Are Not First Offenders
R. Roth. Anonymous surveys of convicted DWI offenders at Victim Impact Panels in Santa Fe, NM
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
46
VI.2
47Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
48
VI. 4. First Offenders are Just as Dangerous as Subsequent Offenders
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
What Fraction of Impaired Drivers in Fatal Crashes are First Offenders?
Roth 6/15/10 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute 49
NHTSA Definitions;Impaired Driver: BAC >= 0.08
First Offender: No BAC Conviction in Previous 3 Years.
92 %http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf page 4
VI.5
Recidivism of Convicted First Offenders10,117 Interlocked; 33,348 Not Interlocked
Roth 6/13/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute 50
Recidivism of 1st Offenders While Interlocked
T1: Time During Installation or Equivalent
1.00.75.50.250.00
Fra
ctio
n R
e-A
rre
ste
d F
or
DW
I
.08
.07
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
.01
0.00
Group
Not Interlocked
Interlocked
Recidivism of First Offenders
With and Without Interlock
Total Time After Installation or Conviction
6543210
Fra
ctio
n R
e-a
rre
ste
d F
for
DW
I
.3
.2
.1
0.0
Group
Not Interlocked
Interlocked
VI.8 Effective VI:6 Cost Effective
Univariate HR(CG/IG)= 1.77Multivariate HR(CG/IG)= 1.59
Univariate HR(CG/IG)= 4.52Multivariate HR(CG/IG)= 4.01
51
50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
% o
f Fir
st O
ffen
ders
Year of Arrest
DWI First Offenders in NMEach Year a Greater Fraction of DWI Offenders are First Offenders. This indicates that our sanctions have been
more successful than our prevention efforts .
1st in 10 Years
1st since 1984
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
VI.10 The importance of Prevention and General Deterrents
52
VII. Young Offenders
1. Have the highest DWI arrest rates2. Have the highest re-arrest rates3. Have the highest DWI crash rates
53
0500
100015002000250030003500400045005000
NM DWI Citations by Age Group
2007
2002
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
DWI Citations Fall Off Dramatically With Age
Underage drinkers do not have the highest arrest rate, but
VII.1.
54Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate.VII.2
04/18/23 Every Drink Increases the Risk 55
Severe Alcohol-Involved Crash RateCrashes per 1000 Drivers in NM in 2004
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
15-20 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65+
Age Range
VII.3.
56
VIII. Miscellaneous Findings
1. Females are an increasing fraction of DWI2. Longer interlock periods are more effective
for subsequent offenders.3. How do interlocked offenders get re-
arrested for DWI?4. Variations in Installation Rate by County.5. Crime and Punishment
57
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Fraction of DWI Offenders That Are Female vs Year of Arrest
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
VIII.1.
58
One Minus Survival Function
AGROUP = 1
T3 Time After Arrest
543210
On
e M
inu
s C
um
Su
rviv
al
.30
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05
0.00
Duration
>400 days
300-400
<300 days
One Minus Survival Function
AGROUP = 2
T3
543210
On
e M
inu
s C
um
Su
rviv
al
.30
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05
0.00
Duration
>400 days
300-400
<300 days
One Minus Survival Function
AGROUP = 3
T3
543210
On
e M
inu
s C
um
Su
rviv
al
.30
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05
0.00
Duration
>400 days
300-400
<300 days
One Minus Survival Function
AGROUP = 4
T3
543210
On
e M
inu
s C
um
Su
rviv
al
.30
.25
.20
.15
.10
.05
0.00
Duration
>400 days
300-400
<300 days
1 year is Best A year or more is best
More than a year is best More than a year is best
(4th or More)
VIII. 2. Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock….PRELIMINARY DATA
Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Roth Interlock Symposium 2007 59
Not Arrested While Interlocked
N=14,730 97.5%
Arrested In Interlocked
. Vehicle N=~92 0.6%
Arrested In Vehicle With a Different
License Plate
N=~287 1.9%
Sample of 15,109 Interlocked In New Mexico
VIII.3.
60
VIII.4.
VIII.5. Whether a drunk drivergets home safely or kills someone
does not depend on
It just depends on a four letter word that rhymes with “duck”.
LUCK
1.Prior Drunk Driving Trips2.Prior DWI Arrests3.Prior DWI Convictions
61Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
IX.Model Ignition Interlock Programby Dick Roth October 20, 2009
1. Mandatory Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders. 1 yr for 1st, 2 yrs for second, 3 yrs for 3rd, and 5 yrs for 4 or more.
2. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring for convicted offenders who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving. Daily requirement of morning and evening alcohol-free breath tests as a condition of probation.(or $1000/yr for supervised probation)
3. An ignition interlock license available to all persons revoked for DWI with no other restrictions. Allow MVD to set fee to cover cost.
62Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Model Ignition Interlock Programby Dick Roth October 20, 2009 continued
4. An Indigent Fund with objective standards such as eligibility for income support or food stamps.
5. Vehicle immobilization or interlock between arrest and adjudication. (or Void Registration or Bond Requirement)
6. Vehicle forfeiture for driving a non-interlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI.
7. No end to revocation period before satisfaction of at least one year of alcohol-free driving with an IID. (eg. ≥ 5000 miles and ≥ 1 year with no BAC>0.05 by any driver) .
8. Criminal sanction for circumvention of IID. 63Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
Roth 6/15/2010 NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute 64
Richard Roth, PhDExecutive Director Impact [email protected]
Impact DWI Websiteswww.ImpactDWI.org
.www.PEDAforTeens.orgwww.AlcoholTaxIncrease.org
www.RothInterlock.org