DUI Defender

In February of this year legislation was introduced to require an Ignition Interlock Device on any car owned by a person convicted of Driving Under the Influence.  Earlier this month I wrote about why I thought this was a bad idea.  In an on-line post “The Spitzer Report” an article regarding the legislation was quoted.  The article cites statistics to support the effectiveness of IID in preventing future DUI’s.  The statistics misrepresent reality.

1)  Spitzer is quoted as saying “California Highway Patrol statistics that show from 2005 to 2006 there was a 14 percent increase in the number of people convicted of driving under the influence with a suspended license for a prior DUI.”  If these driver’s don’t regard the suspended status of their license, why on earth, would they install an ignition interlock device on their vehicle?  The fact of the matter is a certain number of persons will drive with complete and total disregard to the legal status of their driver’s license or sobriety.  I’m not certain why this particular statistic supports the legislation, nor am I sure why this statistic is relevant to deterring future DUI.

2)  “In 2005, there were 23,500 convictions, compared with 26,900 in 2006.”  This statistic again misrepresents the truth.  In 2006 the “lookback” period for prior DUI’s was changed from seven (7) years to ten (10) years. 

The “lookback” period is the amount of time a prosecutor can look back in time to determine if a particular defendant has a prior conviction for DUI.  In 2005, the “lookback” period was seven (7) years meaning that a person who was convicted of DUI in 1998 could be charged with a prior however a person convicted of a DUI in 1997 could not.  In 2006, the lookback period was changed to ten (10) years, meaning that while a person convicted of DUI in 1997 could not be charged with a prior conviction in 2005, they could be charged with a prior conviction in 2006.  This increased the number of driver’s who could potentially be charged with a prior offense rather dramatically as it added every person convicted of DUI between 1996 and 1999 liable for a prior conviction.  This change in the law would easily make up the increase in repeat offenders.

Finally, the article which Spitzer cites in his on-line post concedes, “However, the [DMV] study also found that the device is not effective in reducing DUI convictions or incidents for first-time DUI offenders.”  Which leaves me scratching my head since the ignition interlock is already required for second offenders who wish to be licensed following a one year suspension.  The legislation just seems unduly punitive with no statistical support for the goals it intends on supporting.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed