Ignition interlock proposed for OUIs

AUGUSTA – Convicted drunken drivers would have to use an ignition interlock device in order to drive their vehicles under a proposal before the Legislature that mirrors a national effort to keep drunken drivers off the roads.

“‘What can we do to prevent that tragedy of a drunk driver killing someone’ is what I was thinking about when I put this bill in,” said Sen. Lynn Bromley, D-South Portland. “There has been a lot of talk about increasing penalties, but I think we need to get at the problem at the front end.”

Under the proposal, the driver breathes into the ignition interlock device in order for the equipment to determine whether there is a measurable amount of alcohol in the person’s system. If the mechanism detects a measurable alcohol level, it prevents the vehicle from starting.

Bromley said other states are working on similar proposals being pushed nationally by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which claims that improved technology is part of the solution to drunken driving.

“The tools are now at hand,” said Glynn Birch, national president of MADD, in announcing the national effort last November. “Using technology, tougher enforcement, stronger laws and grass-roots mobilization, the goal of eliminating a primary public health threat that has plagued the United States is within our reach.”

MADD released a survey that indicated 65 percent of those questioned across the country agreed that first-time offenders should be required to have an alcohol ignition interlock. The group said that interlocks are up to 90 percent effective while on the vehicle, but it estimated that only one out of eight convicted drunken drivers each year in the United States now gets the device.

“I will tell you, I am not sure it should be mandated for first [time] offenders,” Bromley said, even though her bill, as drafted, would require the device on a first offense.

“It is something that is a matter of debate and something I hope the committee will thrash out. Maybe it should only be required on the second offense,” she said.

Bromley has broad, bipartisan support for her legislation. Usually a bill can have only a sponsor, a lead co-sponsor and eight other co-sponsors. Bromley got an exemption from Senate President Beth Edmunds, D-Freeport, and House Speaker Glenn Cummings, D-Portland, for the bill to have more co-sponsors after many lawmakers expressed support for the proposed legislation.

“I am surprised and pleased at the number of people that want to sign on, “she said. “I don’t know how many we will have on the bill; people are still signing on.”

But she faces skepticism from many who have been seeking to lessen drunken driving. Sen. Bill Diamond, D-Windham, said that when he was secretary of state for six years in the 1990s, his office had carefully explored the use of ignition interlocks and found them to be unreliable.

“We never could find a way to make it work,” he said. “There were so many loopholes. The technology was not reliable, and then there were the people that would blow into the device for a friend or family member.”

Diamond is co-chairman of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee that will hold hearings on the bill and could decide its fate.

Law enforcement also has concerns. State police Col. Craig Poulin said the devices should not be looked on as a “magic bullet” to the problem of drunken drivers.

“There will always be people that thumb their nose at the law,” he said. “People have more than one car; they have a friend blow into the device; they will find ways around it.”

Poulin said he does not want to be a “naysayer,” but he believes the solution to drunken driving is far broader than technology. He said society has to have zero tolerance for drinking and driving, police have to have more resources to patrol and apprehend offenders, and there need to be treatment programs for those addicted to alcohol.

“There is also the question of who is going to pay for these devices and pay to maintain them and make sure they are working,” Poulin said.

Bromley said her bill is not intended as a solution to drunken driving, but to add to the tools law enforcement and the courts have to deal with the problem.

“I understand the concerns,” she said,” but I think the technology has greatly improved and is now reliable, and it is not as expensive.”

The early devices cost thousands of dollars to purchase, install and maintain. Bromley said the new devices cost less, and she said at least one company leases them for $95 a month including maintenance.

Sen. Roger Sherman, R-Hodgdon, is also a member of the Criminal Justice Committee. He shares the concerns raised about the devices, but he believes the state should use every tool it can to address the problem of people who drink and drive.

“I think this is worth looking at,” he said. “As for someone blowing into the device for a friend, or family member, I think they ought to have the same penalties as those who drink and drive.”

Sherman said the committee will have to discuss whether the devices are mandated on a first offense. He said he does not believe in the “one size fits all” philosophy of justice, and mandating the devices on a second offense may be a more practical approach.

The bill has not been printed, so a hearing is not likely on the proposal until next month.