roth 2/22/07minnesota interlock symposium1 new york times editorial november 25, 2006.. “the...

Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 1

New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006

.. “The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by associations of State highway officials and car manufacturers, is to have all states do what New Mexico has already done: require that all convicted drunken drivers, even first-time offenders, have devices installed in their cars that measure alcohol in the breath and immobilized the car if levels exceed set limits.”


Reducing DWI With InterlocksThe New Mexico Experience

Minnesota Interlock SymposiumFebruary 22, 2007

Richard Roth, PhD

Research Consultant and Citizen Lobbyist

Supported by PIRE, RWJ, and NM TSB


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)


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+


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 5000 offenders surveyed.

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


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) EstimateMy EstimateIn 2005 5688

So Far


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

How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization?


How many interlock licenses have been granted and

is the rate changing?


Interlock Licenses Issued by MVD 10,807 Issued by 11/8/2006; Rate in 2006 = 4999/yr

Data from MVD; Plot by Dr. Roth

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Jun

-03

Se

p-0

3

De

c-03

Ma

r-04

Jun

-04

Se

p-0

4

De

c-04

Ma

r-05

Jun

-05

Se

p-0

5

De

c-05

Ma

r-06

Jun

-06

Se

p-0

6

De

c-06

Ignition


Do Interlocked Offenders have a Lower Re-Arrest Rate?

• Court Mandated Installations of Interlocks. --Selected as installations within 90 days after conviction. N = 3089

• Voluntary Installations. --Selected as all others. N = 4961


Interlock Clients in New Mexico by Year and Reason For Installation

759 10261304

1117

1682

2162

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2003 2004 2005

Year of Interlock Installation

Voluntary: Installedbefore conviction ormore than 90 days afterconviction

Mandated (Installedwithin 90 days after aConviction)

Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations


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(RED) Interlocked Groups(GREEN)

Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders


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

RED=Comparison Groups GREEN=Interlocked Groups

Effectiveness with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated


Percent Re-arrested Within 1 Year of a DWI Conviction vs Year,by PriorsPlot by Dick Roth using Conviction and Arrest Data up to Jan 2006

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year of Conviction

Per

cen

t R

e-ar

rest

ed W

ith

in 1

Yea

r

1 2 3 Interlocked

1st Offenders509 / 8163 = 6.2%

2nd Offenders185 / 2475 = 7.5%

3rd Offenders 92 / 1206 = 7.6%

Interlocked Offenders with 1-6 priors 41 /1005 = 4.1%

No Priors


Did the Mandatory Ignition Interlock Law Change the Statewide DWI

Re-arrest Rate?

• Overall NM DWI Re-arrests before and after mandatory interlocks and Licensing Act

• DWI Re-arrests in the County that used the most interlocks/DWI


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.


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% Reduction

Before

After


NM Alcohol-Involved Crash Rate

2.82.92.9

2.6

2.1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cra

sh

es

pe

r 1

00

0 D

riv

ers

28% drop in 3 years


Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities

NM Alcohol-Involved Fatal Crashes 16% Decrease in 3 Years

167176

184

198

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2003 2004 2005

NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities

194219

0

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005

11% Decrease in 1 year


NM DWI Fatalities (in Red), and Lives Saved (in Green),Data from NM TSB; Plot by Dick Roth

225

214219

194 191

6

31 34

11

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

82 Lives Saved in the 4 years since Interlocks became mandatory in 2003


Survey of Interlocked Offenders

Helped Reduce My Drinking

Helped Reduce My Drinking

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Benefits Outweigh Costs

Benefits Outweigh Costs

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks

All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

40

30

20

10

0

Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving

Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving

SAAUDSD

Pe

rce

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

77% 81%

69% 63%

N = 796


Interlocks Installed by Provider in NM

ADS2%

Dra46%

Gua10%

Lif22%

SS13%

CST6%

ACS1%

January to September 2006

Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 230.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

McKinley

San Juan

Curry

Otero

Grant

Dona Ana

Roosevelt +3

San Miguel

Luna+1

Lincoln

Socorro +2

Chavez

Colfax+3

Lea

New Mexico

Cibola

Bernalillo

Torrance

Sandoval

Taos

Eddy

Valencia

Rio Arriba

Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Interlocks Installed Per Conviction in First 9 months of 2006

Caution: this figure includes installations by persons not convicted, and changes of provider.

Roth 2/22/07 Minnesota Interlock Symposium 240.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

McKinley

Curry

Otero

San Juan

Grant

Dona Ana

San Miguel

Colfax+3

Roosevelt +3

Lincoln

Socorro +2

Taos

New Mexico

Lea

Luna+1

Cibola

Bernalillo

Chavez

Sandoval

Valencia

Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Rio Arriba

Torrance

Eddy

Interlocks Installed per DWI Arrest by County in NM

Jan-Sept 2006

Caution: Includes

some changes

of Provider.

Room for Improvement


Surveys of 2440 DWI Offenders at 10 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%90%

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

2006 2006 Jun-06

% Mandated % Installed before VIP


Proposals to Close NM Loopholes

1. Add “or electronic monitoring” for No car.2. Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked

without an interlock.3. Vehicle Immobilization or Interlock between

arrest and adjudication.4. Crime to contribute to circumvention.5. Apply interlock sanction to juvenile

offenders.6. Mandate a period of alcohol-free DRIVING

before getting unrestricted license.


MN NM 2005 Comparison• 4.9M 1.9M Population• 86% 43% White, non Hispanic• 4% 43% Hispanic and Latino• 1.2% 10% Native American• 3.6M 1.2M Licensed Drivers• 37,002 18,478 DWI Arrests• 0.16% 0.16% Average BAC• 30,534 12,765 DWI Convictions• 82% 69% Conviction Rate• ~20,700 10,834 “First Offenders”• ~56% 59% Percent First Offenders• 201 189 Alcohol Involved Fatalities


DWI Arrest Trend in MinnesotaData from MN OTS; Plot by Dick Roth

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

What does this trend imply?

1. Bad News: More Drunk Driving?.... or

2. Good News: More Enforcement?


Statistics Proportional to Drunk DrivingData from MN OTS; Plot by Dick Roth

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Crashes

Injuries

Deaths X 10

What do these trends imply?

Good News: LESS DRUNK DRIVING

Or Safer Hiways…or Safer Cars….or More Seat Belt Use

DWI


Recommendations for MN

• 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 significant period of time. Eg 1 year.

• Motivate those who do not drive Alcohol-Free to take advantage of Treatment.


Administrative vs. Judicial Interlock Programs

A Roundtable & Debate on Pros and Cons

Presenters:

Robert Voas, Ph.D. Richard Roth, Ph.D.

Participants:Jim Mosher, J.D. Ian Marples, LL.B. Jim Frank, Ph.D.

Robyn Robertson, M.A. Bill Rauch, D.A.

International Ignition Interlock Symposium,

October 22-24, 2006

With some revisions in YELLOW by Roth


Ideal Judicial Program1. Interlocks as a condition of probation for all

convicted offenders2. With electronic monitoring or periodic urine

tests as the only alternatives 3. Minimum of one year duration4. Compliance-Based-Removal: No recorded

BAC>0.05 for 6 months prior to Removal 5. Mandatory extra monitoring for the non-

compliant. eg.UAs, Sobrieters, or SCRAM6. Mandatory Treatment if indicated by #5.


JUDICIAL ADVANTAGES

• It is mandatory (if electronic monitoring, periodic urine tests, or jail are the only alternatives)

• It eliminates self-selection• It gets more interlocks installed per DWI. Eg over

35% of those arrested in NM. ._____________________________________

DISADVANTAGES• Applies only to those convicted (65%-85%)• Judicial Implementation Varies by judge• Installation is not immediate after arrest.


Ideal Administrative Program

Upon arrest DMV suspends under ALR but offers free interlock program

Upon conviction court orders electronic house arrest, or other electronic monitoring unless offender has installed interlock and begins to pay for it.

DWI fines raised to cover interlock costsCompliance based removal and referral to

treatment.


ADMINISTRATIVE

ADVANTAGES• Centralized authority and criteria• Prompt Installation after arrest• Allows changed offenders to drive legally• Applicable to all arrested DWI offenders.

DISADVANTAGES • Large self-selection component• Avoided by those who need it most• Doesn’t get many interlocks installed per DWI• Doesn’t reduce over-all recidivism by much. • Many more Administrative Appeal Hearings


Legislative Recommendations1. Immobilization or Interlock between DWI

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

for all convicted offenders with electronic monitoring or urine testing as the only alternatives.

3. Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC > .05 by any driver for a year.

4. Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation.

5. An Indigent Fund with objective standards.6. Mandatory Period of Interlock before

Unrestricted License Reinstatement.

roth 2/22/07minnesota interlock symposium1 new york times editorial november 25, 2006.. “the...

Documents

minnesota interlock

minnesota interlock

minnesota interlock

minnesota interlock

minnesota interlock

interlock licenses

interlock utilization

day slide