interlocks in new mexico richard roth, phd executive director, impact dwi citizen lobbyist and...

Interlocks in New Mexico

Richard Roth, PhDExecutive Director, Impact DWI

Citizen Lobbyist and Research Consultant

Supported by PIRE, NHTSA, RWJ, and NM TSB

[email protected], 471-4764, www.impactdwi.org

MADD DWI Technology Symposium, June 2006

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.impactdwi.org/

Richard Roth MADD Technology Symposium June 2006

2

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)


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 3000 offenders surveyed.

• ..But they only work if you get them installed.


4

Does an Interlock Law or Program Reduce DWI Re-

Arrests?

• Yes, if interlocks get installed.

• No, if interlocks do not get installed.


5

Motivation Continuum For DWI Offenders to Install Interlocks

Under Existing and Possible Laws

• From Incentives to Mandates

• From Carrots to Sticks


6

CarrotsLegal Driving Privileges

1. Early license reinstatement

2. License reinstatement requirement.

3. How soon after arrest?


7

Sticks: Judicial Mandates

• Optional or Mandatory

• Some or All offenders

• To avoid immobilization, impoundment or forfeiture of vehicle on arrest

• To avoid house arrest, warrant, or jail on conviction


8

New Mexico Interlock Laws• 1999 Optional for 2nd and 3rd DWI.

• 2002 Mandatory for all Aggravated and Subsequent DWI. Indigent Fund

• 2003 Ignition Interlock License Act: ….an alternative to revocation.

• 2005 Mandatory Interlocks for all DWIs: 1yr for 1st ; 2 for 2nd ; 3 for 3rd ; Lifetime for 4+


9

Ignition Interlock Installation Rates Under Various Laws in NM

0

10002000

30004000

5000

60007000

8000

OptionalJudicial

Sanction for2nd and 3rd

DWI

Mandatoryfor 1st Agand Above

InterlockLicenseAvailable

Mandatoryfor All DWIConvictions

DWIConvictions

Inst

alla

tio

n R

ate

(per

yea

r) Estimate


10

Interlocks in New Mexico

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07

Installed Removed Current


11

10962

4105

2076

11321356

19631 DWI Arrests in 2002 in NM

1st2nd

3rd

4th 5+

Our biggest Problem! 1st offenders.

This segment is growing each year.

Our laws have targeted multiple offenders..

We need to reach these persons BEFORE they offend.


12

NM 2004 Severe Alcohol Crash RatesPlot by Dick Roth, Nov 16, 2005

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Over64

60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 21-24 under21

Cra

sh

es

pe

r 1

00

0 D

riv

ers


13

Recidivism During and After Interlock

Total Time During and After Interlock

2.52.01.51.0.50.0

Fra

ctio

n R

e-A

rre

sdte

d f

or

DW

I

.18

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

GROUP

IG

CG

Recidivism of First Offenders in New Mexico

N

1461

17166

Average Installation

Time = .47 yrs


14

Rearrest Rate Per Year of Exposure in Three PeriodsFor New Mexico First Offenders

2.7%

4.8%3.9%

7.3%6.5% 6.8%

0.0%1.0%

2.0%3.0%

4.0%5.0%

6.0%7.0%

8.0%

Interlock On Post Interlock Total Exposure

Re-

Arr

est

Rat

e P

er Y

ear

Interlock Group (N=1461) Comparison Group (N=17,562)

Court Mandated Interlocks Reduce the Recidivism of First Offenders


15

Recidivism of Mandated Interlocked Offenders vs Comparison Group by Conviction Number

6.4%

8.1% 8.3%

2.6%3.2% 3.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

C# = 1 C# = 2 C# = 3

DWI Convictions Prior to Installation

Rea

rres

ted

wit

hin

1 y

ear

Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups

Interlocks are Effective with Court Mandated Offenders


16

Recidivism of Non-mandated Interlocked offenders vs Comparison Group by Arrest Number

9.1%

12.0%

1.5% 1.6%

3.6%

6.8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

A# = 1 A# = 2 A# = 3+

DWI Arrests prior to Installation

% R

e-a

rre

ste

d w

ith

in 1

ye

ar

Comparison Groups Interlocked Groups

Interlocks are Effective with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated


17

DWI Re-Arrests While Interlocks are Installed

For Persons Subject to 10 year Revocation

Time During Installation (months)

24211815129630

Fra

ctio

n R

e-A

rre

ste

d f

or

DW

I.25

.20

.15

.10

.05

0.00

Group

Control

Interlock

22.5%

6.0%

(3 or more DWI convictions in 10 years)


18

A study of DWI offenders arrestedbetween Jan 2003 and June,

2005.

• 5707 offenders installed interlocks• 3036 of the 5707 removed their interlocks before end

of study, June 30, 2005

• 38,105 persons were arrested for DWI but did not install interlocks


19

Time Between Installation and Removal (days)

732641

549458

366275

183920

Interlock Installation Times in NM600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Std. Dev = 144.15

Mean = 213

N = 3036.00

90 Days was the minimum revocation time and the

maximum jail time for first offenders

days

Installed after 1/1/03 and removed before July

05


20

Recidivism While Interlocks Are Installed

Time During Installation (Months)

24211815129630

Fra

ctio

n R

e-A

rre

ste

d F

or

DW

I

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

GROUP

Control

Interlock

8%

8%

3%

5707

38,105

Jan 2003-June 2005


21

Interlock Licenses Issued by MVD 7918 Issued by 4/26/2006; Rate in 2006 = 4660/yr

Data from MVD; Plot by Dr. Roth

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Jun-03

Sep-03

Dec-03

Mar-04

Jun-04

Sep-04

Dec-04

Mar-05

Jun-05

Sep-05

Dec-05

Mar-06

Ignition


22

Currently-Installed Interlocks per Capita.Data from 9 providers; Plot by Dick Roth, June 2006

342

2737

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

New Mexico U.S.

Inte

rlo

ck

s p

er

Mill

ion

Po

pu

lati

on


23

Currently Installed Interlocks by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth, June 10, 2006

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000T

exas

Was

hin

gto

n

No

rth

Car

olin

a

Cal

ifo

rnia

Flo

rid

a

New

Mex

ico

Iow

a

Mar

ylan

d

Mic

hig

an

Ari

zon

a

Vir

gin

ia

Co

lora

do

Illin

ois

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Oh

io

Mis

sou

ri

Okl

aho

ma

Geo

rgia

Ark

ansa

s

Ore

go

n

Uta

h

Wis

con

sin

Lo

uis

ian

a

New

Yo

rk

Wes

t V

irg

inia

All

Oth

er S

tate

s

Revised June 15, 2006

Note:Still missing data from one distributor.


24

Currently-Installed Interlocks per Million Residents by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 US Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth June 15,2006

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500N

ew M

exic

o

Iow

a

Was

hin

gto

n

Mar

ylan

d

No

rth

Car

olin

a

Ari

zon

a

Co

lora

do

Okl

aho

ma

Vir

gin

ia

Uta

h

Ark

ansa

s

Mic

hig

an

Wes

t V

irg

inia

Tex

as

Ore

go

n

Mis

sou

ri

Idah

o

Flo

rid

a

So

uth

Dak

ota

Del

awar

e

Illin

ois

Oh

io

Pen

nsy

lvan

ia

Geo

rgia

Lo

uis

ian

a

Missing data from one distributor


25

Interlocks installed per Alcohol Involved FatalityInterlock data from 8 of 9 Interlock Providers 2006;

2004 Fatality data from NHTSA FARS.Plot by Dick Roth, Revised June 15, 2006

3732

2115 14

11 11 10 9 8

05

10152025303540

Iow

a

Wa

sh

ing

ton

Ne

wM

ex

ico

Uta

h

Ma

ryla

nd

No

rth

Ca

roli

na

Co

lora

do

Vir

gin

ia

Mic

hig

an

Ari

zon

a

Missing data from one distributor


26

Interlock Installations Per DWI Conviction in 2004Including All Installations before July 1, 2005

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

SF Mag

San Miguel

Quay

Eddy

New Mexico

Torrance

Lea

Dona Ana

Bernalillo

Luna

Sandoval

San Juan

Grant

Hidalgo

This graph only includes installations by convicted persons

New Mexico Counties

New Mexico State

Santa Fe County

Santa Fe Magistrate Court

Same State…….. Same Law… Different Counties and Judges Wide Range of Installation Rates


27

Surveys of 2440 DWI Offenders at 9 Albuquerque Victim Impact Panels. Responses to the questions:

1.Did the court mandate that you install an interlock? 2. Have you installed an interlock already?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Mar-06

Apr-06

May-06

% Mandated % Installed before VIP


28

Recidivism of 58779 NM DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

On

e M

inu

s C

um

Su

rviv

al

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.0% Before

6.7% After

A 16% Reduction

Statewide recidivism decreased when Interlocks became mandatory.


29

Recidivism of 4855 SF County DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

Fra

ctio

n R

ea

rre

ste

d f

or

DW

I

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.7% Before

6.2% After

A 29% ReductionBefore

After


30

Goals

• Get Interlocks into the vehicles of all those arrested for DWI as soon as possible after arrest.

• Keep interlocks installed until there is evidence of Alcohol Free Driving for a year.


31

Recommendations1. Immobilization or Interlock between DWI

arrest and adjudication. 2. Mandatory Interlock for at least one year for

all convicted offenders with immobilization as the only alternative.

3. Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC > .04 by any driver for a year.

4. Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation.

5. An Indigent Fund with objective standards.


32

Loopholes in NM DWI LawsA. Interlocks are not mandatory for all convicted DWI’s (Fixed 2005)

B. License Revocation is too short. (90 days for 1st DWI) (Better 2005)

C. Mandatory Interlock Period not long enough for some. (Better 2005)

D. Interlocks not mandated between Arrest and Adjudication. Some arrested DWI offenders endanger the public and others abscond.

E. Some offenders do not install when mandated to do so.

F. Technicalities result in not-guilty

G. No alternative sanction for “Not Driving” and “No Vehicle” excuses.

H. Some interlocked offenders drive non-interlocked vehicles.

I. Some interlocks are removed before end of Mandate.

J. No uniform standard for Indigency

K. No Central Supervision of Interlock Program


33

Legislative Proposals

1. Immobilization or Interlock on arrest for DWI (DWI offenders are a flight risk and a danger to the public and the vehicle is hazard to the public)

2. To insure no drinking during probation, mandate sobrieter, biweekly (random)urine tests, or interlock.

3. House arrest as an alternative to interlock for those who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving”


34

AlcoholTaxIncrease.org

• Raise the Alcohol Excise Tax by about 10cents per drink and make it uniform.

• 25 cents per ounce of alcohol in any alcoholic beverage.

• This would help to pay for the prevention, treatment, enforcement, and adjudication that presently comes out of the general fund for alcohol crimes and adiction.


35

Key Contributors to NM’s Interlock Laws, Implementation, and Research

• Mike Sandoval, NM Traffic Safety Bureau• Rachel O’Connor, NM DWI Tsarina`• Jim Davis, NM Div of Government Research• NM Legislators. Especially: Phil Griego, Kent Cravens,

Ken Martinez, and Patsy Trujillo• Governors Johnson and Richardson• PIRE Colleagues: Paul Marques and Bob Voas• Jim Frank, NHTSA• NM Interlock Providers: ACS,ADS,CST,Draeger,

Guardian, Lifesafer, and Smart Start• NM: TSB, MVD, DOT, AOC, DFA, DPS, MADD• NM Judges and prosecuting attorneys.

interlocks in new mexico richard roth, phd executive director, impact dwi citizen lobbyist and...

Documents

dwi technology symposium

daymadd technology symposium

dwi offenders

subsequent dwi

mandatory interlocks

dwi rearrests

yearinstallation rate

house arrest