Pros and cons presented by ignition interlock bill

A new bill from the Ohio House of Representatives Judiciary Committee could require first-time OVI offenders to have a Breathalyzer device called an ignition interlock installed in their vehicle. Ohio law currently only requires second and repeat OVI offenders within six years of their last OVI to have an ingnition interlock device.

While the bill known as House Bill 469 or “Annie’s Law” has the potential to save lives, the bill’s final Ohio Judiciary Committee hearing scheduled for Tuesday, Sept. 30, was postponed after the Ohio State Bar Association and Ohio Judicial Committee outlined their oppositions to the bill that would affect state and local government.

“Drunk driving’s a problem in Kent, and we get a lot of it here,” Lt. Jim Prusha of the Kent Police Department.

In Kent, OVI arrests have been sporadic with 2010 having 228 arrest and the highest number of OVI arrests at 302 in 2011. This year there have already been 126 OVI arrests and 20 accidents resulting from driving under the influence of alcohol.

“If we have one death, one fatality I should say, from drunk driving that’s one too many,” said Michquel Penn, community resource officer for the Kent State Police Department.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 10,322 fatalities from crashes involving a drunk driver occurred in 2012. That was 31 percent of total traffic fatalities that same year.

 

Creating “Annie’s Law”

Bill sponsors Representatives Gary Scherer (R-Circleville) and Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) presented “Annie’s Law,” in March 2014 in response to the death of Annie Rooney who was struck and killed by a drunk driver on July 4, 2013 while she traveled on U.S. Route 50.

Annie was a 36-year-old domestic violence prosecutor and constituent of Rep. Scherer residing in Chillicothe. The woman who killed Annie was a repeat offender of drunk driving and was sentenced to eight years in prison after she pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide.

“I think the public has a right when you drive anywhere, home from work or the store whatever, to not be killed by somebody because they were drunk and they were driving,” said Doug Scoles, Ohio’s state executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

MADD has been attempting to get ignition interlock legislation passed since 2006, Scoles said. Following Annie’s death, the Rooney family reached out to MADD for help and MADD told them ignition interlocks were the best way to fight drunk driving, Annie’s father Dr. Richard Rooney said.

The Rooney family also reached out to Rep. Johnson, a friend of the family, and Rep. Scherer who then agreed to sponsor the bill. Since Annie’s death, the family has continued to share their experience to support the bill.

“The hardest part is we miss her so much,” Dr. Rooney said. “And every time I give a speech or every time we go up and do these things, we have to relive everything. And then we come home and we are very sad, and that’s the hardest part. And on the other hand the good part is we’ve met a lot of wonderful people.” 

Annie’s Law has also been endorsed by Nationwide Insurance, AAA division in Ohio, MADD and the Ohio State Medical Association.

According to the CDC, ignition interlocks reduced drunk driving repeat offenses by 67 percent. Ohio would be the 25th state to pass an ignition interlock law for first-time offenders.

Other states that have employed the devices have seen a dramatic decrease in drunk driving and drunk driving related fatalities. Drunk driving fatalities have dropped by 43 percent in Arizona, 42 percent in Oregon and 33 percent in Virginia after the 2008 all-offender interlock laws passed, according to MADD’s website.

Ohio’s OVI’s are still on the rise, with the Ohio State Highway Patrol reporting 19,077 OVI enforcements in 2014. This is a 626 increase from 2013.  

Judicial discretion controversy state and local

Despite statistics that support the potential lifesaving benefits of ignition interlocks, the Ohio Judicial Committee and the Ohio State Bar Association oppose factors of the bill not focused on in OVI statistics.

“As you might suspect, it is a fairly controversial bill,” said Alexandra Adams, Representative Gary Scherer’s legislative aid. “Most people know someone who’s had a DUI conviction, so this legislation is going to impact hundreds to thousands of (Ohioans) potentially. So it’s definitely not legislation to be taken lightly, and I think everyone involved, all the interested parties involved realize that.”

The letter sent on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association by Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jim Butler state that the bill reduces judicial discretion in OVI cases and “Judicial discretion is paramount in these types of cases with relatively low recidivism rates.”

The letter also outlined other concerns such as an increase in trials and administration license suspension hearings burdening the criminal justice system as well as opposing the use of a driver’s license as a tool of punishment and creating a burden with the mandatory interlock restrictions.

“We don’t want anymore people to die and this is a safety device not a punishment device,” Dr. Rooney said.

Scoles and Dr. Rooney also said they disagree with judicial discretion being an issue.

“If you really think this law through, this law does not tie judges hands. It really doesn’t,” Scoles said. “They still have the option of offenders not having to take the interlock they can just take the license suspension period.”

Kent State Police Officer Penn said she could see both the pros and cons of the bill, with forcing all first-time offenders possibly being a problem based on an individual’s situation.

“You have to look at individual circumstances,” Penn said. “Maybe this is an individual who made a mistake. First time and fortunately didn’t cause a fatality or anything like that. They are going through their normal motions of the punishment for violating the law; however, they may be in a family sharing one car. Having a device like (ignition interlocks) may interfere with things like that. It’s really a case-by-case thing.”

Pitfalls and advantages of ignition interlocks

An ignition interlock is essentially a Breathalyzer connected to the ignition of a vehicle that will only turn on if the offender passes the Breathalyzer test. The idea is that offenders will be unable to drive drunk because their cars will not start if they fail the test.

“There are unfortunately a lot of pitfalls with ignition interlock,” said Judge Barbara Oswick of the Portage County Municipal Court.“…People who have a serious problem (with drinking and driving), if they want to drive, they are going to find a way to drive whether they have a license, whether they have a car titled in their name.”

Kent Police Lt. Jim Prusha said he wondered if people could get around the device by having other’s blow into it. Oswick said she has encountered offenders having ignition interlocks installed on “beater” cars that they don’t drive, but have proof of interlock instillation while they drive another car without the interlock.

Another offender once had a sibling take the test for him. Elizabeth Gambone, regional public policy director of the ignition interlock company LifeSafer Inc., says that ignition interlocks are the best technology to prevent drunk driving.

“It works the vast majority of cases, but if you are going to have somebody else blow into it, I can’t say it’s impossible because it’s not,” Gambone said.

Gambone said specific ways to blow into the device, rolling retests and camera and GPS devices on ignition interlocks are ways to prevent people from still driving drunk or letting others take the test.

The offender is trained to blow a certain way into the device when the device is installed, Gambone said. In rolling retests the offender is prompted to blow into the device in time integrals throughout the drive, often starting at 5 minutes and then 10 minutes. Devices with GPS and camera’s are also available to ensure the driver is sober and not someone else driving or taking the test.

Oswick said she prefers using an ankle device called SCRAM that monitors blood alcohol content continuously when sentencing repeat OVI offenders.

“I like the idea of SCRAM because our orders are ‘You cannot drink while this matter is pending,’ “ Oswick said. “So someone basically is walking around with a breathalyzer on 24 hours a day.”

Another pitfall is that monitoring results for ignition interlocks in Portage County are only received about every month, while SCRAM results are sent daily, Oswick said.

“I really don’t care what the system is whether its ignition interlock or SCRAM,” Oswick said. “Nothings perfect but something is better than nothing, and if it’s going to save a life, it’s worth trying.”

Portage County also resorts to SCRAM devices because about 180 devices were purchased after there was a surplus from the Indigent Alcohol Monitoring Fund that helps to fund monitoring devices offender’s cannot afford, Oswick said.

Ignition interlock costs

“Probably the biggest stumbling block to something like ignition interlock or SCRAM is the cost,” Oswick said.

Oswick said Portage County’s SCRAM devices cost about $2,000 a piece and have a daily monitoring fee between about $4.50 and $5 that is lower due to the large number of devices the courts have.

According to the bill’s fiscal and local impact statement, a one-time $70 to $150 fee for ignition interlock installation and a $60 to $90 monthly fee for monitoring, maintenance, and calibration are expected.

Ignition interlocks cost about $2.50 a day for offenders, Gambone said. For LifeSaver devices this averages to about $70 a month and can be upwards of $80 a month if GPS monitoring or camera interlocks must be installed for an extra $10 a month.

In addition to the charges offenders would pay for the device a court fee of $2.50 would be added to supply the State Highway Safety Fund and that the Department of Public Safety would use to pay for costs of the Ohio habitual OVI offender Registry, according to the bill’s fiscal and local impact statement.

If the court declares an offender is too poor to pay for the device, they will be declared indigent and receive a device completely or partially paid for from the appropriate county or municipal indigent drivers interlock and alcohol monitoring fund, according to the bill’s fiscal and local impact statement. 

License reinstatement fees paid to the BMV currently fund the indigent fund. Out of the 475 dollars paid, 75 dollars returns to the jurisdiction of the OVI conviction, Oswick said.

The bill’s fiscal and local impact statement also said it is uncertain if the local funds will be sufficient to cover the demand increase.

“We have a lot of money opposed to municipalities that are kind of pieced together in local areas,” Oswick said of Portage County Municipal Court. “We get quite a bit of funding”

This is partially because the Portage County Municipal Court is a countywide jurisdiction with three courts.

While the judiciary committee works to make final changes to the bill, the 5th and final hearing for the bill in committee is still pending.

“Hopefully we are able to iron out all those issues and get the bill voted on and start moving through the process,” said Alexandra Adams, Rep. Scherer’s legislative aid.