IGNITION INTERLOCKS AND DRUNK DRIVING Richard Roth Ph

IGNITION INTERLOCKS AND DRUNK DRIVING Richard Roth, Ph. D Research Supported By NM TSB, NHTSA, PIRE, and RWJ Denver Interlock Institute October 20, 2009 Sponsored by MADD and NHTSA

Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike Race One Dead, 10 Injured , June 1, 2008 Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 2

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) 3

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. 4

I. The New Mexico Program 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Evolution of Laws Interlock Installations vs Time Currently Installed Interlocks vs Time Interlock Licenses Granted Three Comparisons to Other States 5

1. 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. (Admin. Prog. ) • 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 • 2009 No Unrestricted License without Interlock Period Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 6

Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 7

Jun-09 Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 9769 8

Interlock Licenses Issued by MVD 31, 048 Issued by 8/21/2009; Rate in 2009 = 8924/yr Data from MVD; Plot by Dr. Roth 35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Dec-09 Jun-09 Dec-08 Jun-08 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference Dec-07 Jun-07 Dec-06 Jun-06 Dec-05 Jun-05 Dec-04 Jun-04 Dec-03 Jun-03 Roth 8/25/2009 9

Currently Installed Interlocks by State Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 10

Per Capita Interlocks by State Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 11

II. Measures of Effectiveness 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Recidivism After a DWI Arrest Recidivism After a DWI Conviction Overall Statewide Recidivism vs Time Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities Correlation between Interlocks Installed and Measures of Drunk Driving 8. Opinions of Interlocked Offenders 12

Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 13

10% % Re-arrested within 1 year 9% 8% Recidivism After a DWI Conviction Recidivism of NM 9. 4% Drivers After a 9. 2% DWI CONVICTION Between January 2003 and August 2007 8. 7% Plot by Dick Roth 11/20/08 7. 8% 7% 6% 5% Not Interlocked 4% 3. 0% 2. 8% 3% 1. 9% 2% 1. 7% 1% 0% 1 2 3 4+ Conviction Number Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 14

Overall DWI Recidivism Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 15

Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 16

Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 17

Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 18

19

Interlocks Up. . . Drunk Driving Down (Correlation = -0. 93) 2002 -7 Z-scores of Interlock Installations and 3 Measures of DWI Richard Roth, Ph. D. ; February 27, 2009 1. 5 1. 0 0. 5 Interlocks A-I Crashes 0. 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 A-I Injuries A-I Fatalities -0. 5 -1. 0 -1. 5 -2. 0 Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 20

21

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 22

III. INTERLOCK PROGRAMS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Identify Goals Increase Incentives Eliminate Hoops Close Loopholes Triage Sanctions Research 23

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. 24

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 • • • 25

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 26

4. Close Loopholes • • • Increase Incentive. Eliminate Hoops No waiting out Revocation Period. “No Car” or “Not Driving” Excuse. Ineffective penalty for DWR. Serve warrants for Non-compliance 27

5. Triage Up in Sanctions • • Extension of Interlock Period Photo Interlock Home Photo Breathalyzer SCRAM Treatment House Arrest Jail 28

6. Research Measures 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. 29

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. Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 30

Loopholes that Remain in NM 1. “No Car” or “Not Driving” excuse 2. No interlock between arrest and adjudication (Learning, DWI, Absconding) 3. Ineffective Penalty for DWR 4. Possibility of waiting out revocation period without installing an interlock 5. No Objective Standard for Indigency Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 31

Loopholes that Remain in NM #1 “No Car” or “Not Driving” The FIX Task Force 1. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring: A. As a condition of Probation B. For all who claim “No Car” or “Not Driving C. For the same period and cost as an interlock D. Paid for by the offender E. 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 Result More Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 32

Loopholes that Remain in NM #2 No Interlock Between Arrest and Adjudication. The Problem: A. Some Offenders re-offend between arrest and adjudication B. 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 The FIX Task Force 1. Immobilization or Interlock between Arrest and Adjudication or 2. Void Vehicle Registration on Arrest (unless interlock is installed or arrest is successfully appealed) or 3. Interlock as a condition of bond Expected Result More Interlocks, Less Absconding, Fewer DWI’s between Arrest and Adjudication Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 33

Loopholes that Remain in NM #3 Ineffective Penalty for DWR Too Strong. . Not Applied The FIX (SB 307) Vehicle Forfeiture for Driving While Revoked without an Interlock Expected Result More Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving Compromise-Task Force Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 34

Loopholes that Remained in NM #4 Offenders Wait Out the Revocation Period without Interlock The FIX SB 275 No 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 Result More Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving SB 275 Became NM Law July 1, 2009 Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 35

With No Objective Standard, NM Judges Certify up to 35% as Indigent. $ 1, 800, 000 $ 1, 600, 000 Gross Income Gross Outgo NM Indigent Fund and Outgo For 9000 currently installed interlocks $100 per year from non-indigents, $300, 000 from State, 5% to Administration, $500 per year to indigents. $ 1, 400, 000 $ 1, 200, 000 $ 1, 000 $ 800, 000 $ 600, 000 $ 400, 000 $ 200, 000 $0% Roth 8/25/2009 5% 10% 15% 20% Percent Indigent 25% NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 30% 35% 40% 36

V. Myths About First Offenders 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. First Offenders Drove Drunk Once Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities Interlocks are not cost-effective for them Interlocks are a fair sanction for them Interlocks are not effective for them Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them. 37

First Offenders Are Not First Offenders They have driven an average of 500 times after drinking before their first arrest. R. Roth. Anonymous surveys of convicted DWI offenders at Victim Impact Panels in Santa Fe, NM Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 38

39

First Offenders are Just as Dangerous as Subsequent Offenders Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 40

Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 41

Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 42

VI. Young Offenders 1. Have the highest DWI arrest rates 2. Have the highest re-arrest rates 3. Have the highest DWI crash rates 43

DWI Citations Fall Off Dramatically With Age Underage drinkers do not have the highest arrest rate, but Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 44

Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate. 35. 0% Recidivism of First Offenders in NM For 147, 808 Offenders Arrested Between 1991 and 2003 % Re-arrested within 5 years 30. 0% 25. 0% 20. 0% 15. 0% 10. 0% 5. 0% 0. 0% 16 -20 21 -25 26 -30 31 -35 36 -40 41 -45 46 -50 51 -55 56 -60 61 -65 66 -70 71 -75 Age Group Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 45

Whether a drunk driver gets home safely or kills someone does not depend on 1. Prior Drunk Driving Trips 2. Prior DWI Arrests 3. Prior DWI Convictions It just depends on a four letter word that rhymes with “duck”. LUCK Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 46

VII. Miscellaneous Findings 1. Females are an increasing fraction of DWI 2. Longer interlock periods are more effective for subsequent offenders. 3. How do interlocked offenders get rearrested for DWI? 4. Variations in Installation Rate by County. 47

Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 48

Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock…. PRELIMINARY DATA 1 year is Best A year or more is best (4 th or More) More than a year is best Roth 8/25/2009 More than a year is best NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 49

50

51

52

VIII. Model Ignition Interlock Program by Dick Roth October 20, 2009 1. Mandatory Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders. 1 yr for 1 st, 2 yrs for second, 3 yrs for 3 rd, 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. Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 53

Model Ignition Interlock Program by 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 noninterlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI. 7. No end to revocation period before satisfaction of at least one year of alcoholfree 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. Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 54

Richard Roth, Ph. D Executive Director Impact DWI Richard. Roth 2300@msn. com Impact DWI Websites www. Impact. DWI. org www. PEDAfor. Teens. org www. Alcohol. Tax. Increase. org Roth 8/25/2009 NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference 55