Interlock Ignition Devices Found to Deter Drunk Driving in Massachusetts
“In two years of data, few could argue that it’s not having a sincere deterrent effect and changing lives,’’ said Rachel Kaprielian, registrar of motor vehicles.
The devices, known as IIDs, were part of a more expansive package of tougher measures that became part of Melanie’s Law in 2005. Repeat drunken drivers now face mandatory jail sentences and longer license suspensions.
Under the interlock program, those who have been convicted of a second offense must have the device installed in their cars once they seek to have their licenses reinstated, or if they received a license immediately under a hardship appeal.
Milton Valencia of Boston.com writes that of the hundreds of drivers who have completed the minimum two-year program, only 30 have been arrested and convicted a third time—a recidivism rate of less than 2 percent.
A driver with an IID must breathe into the device whenever starting the car and every 20 minutes. If alcohol is detected on the driver’s breath, the car will not start. Anyone who breathes into it on behalf of the driver could face penalties, and the driver’s license would have restrictions to notify police of the requirements. The program runs for at least two years, but a judge can require a longer sentence.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving has endorsed the program, calling it one of the most effective parts of Melanie’s Law.
While a third of the people arrested for drunken driving each year are repeat offenders, the devices have become a new control for law enforcement.
“Whenever you can separate the drinking from the driving, it’s kind of doing the job,’’ said David DeIuliis, a spokesman for MADD’s Massachusetts chapter who said that supporters are pushing for a measure that would have the devices installed for anyone convicted of a first offense. Nationwide, more than 20 states require devices on the first offense, while other states let judges decide. Three states do not have provisions for ignition devices.
James M. Milligan, a Norwell defense lawyer who handles drunken-driving cases, said the devices have become an integral part of the state’s judicial system. He said defense lawyers continue to question the overall accuracy of the devices, noting that different substances have been known to trigger false readings. He said the devices should be reserved for the most serious of repeat offenders.
But Milligan also said the devices have become an appropriate measure of the justice system, allowing defendants to have their licenses reinstated while assuring they stay sober.