Ignition Interlock Monthly Data Reports
| Published date | 01 March 2009 |
| DOI | 10.1350/ijps.2009.11.1.115 |
| Date | 01 March 2009 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Ignition interlock monthly data reports
Andrew Fulkerson
Department of Criminal Justice and Sociology, Brandt Hall, Southeast Missouri State
University, Cape Girardeau, MO 63701. Tel: (573) 651 2429; email: afulkerson@semo.edu
Received 17 June 2008; revised and accepted 31 July 2008
Keywords: drunken driving, ignition interlock, recidivism, routine activities
theory
Andrew Fulkerson is the former judge of the
the vehicle being ‘locked out’ and unavailable for
Greene County, Arkansas District Court, having
use. This paper examines the data reports col-
served 15 years in that position. Fulkerson holds
lected on a sample of interlock users who were
a BA and MA from Arkansas State University, a
court-ordered to install the device as a result of a
JD from the Leflar Law Center of the University
DWI conviction in the state of Arkansas. Almost
of Arkansas, and a PhD from the University of
half of the subjects experienced one or more
Portsmouth, UK. He is a former member of the
violations with a breath alcohol level that
Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Com-
exceeded the 0.08 g/dl legal limit. More than
mission and past president of the Arkansas Dis-
20 per cent had violations at the very high level
trict Judges Council. He now serves as associate
of 0.15 g/dl. These data suggest that the ignition
professor of criminal justice in the Department of
interlock may be very effective in preventing DWI
Criminal Justice and Sociology at Southeast
recidivism among the problem ‘hard-core’ drunk
Missouri State University. His research interests
driver.
include restorative justice issues, drug treatment
courts, domestic violence, the ignition interlock
system for DWI offenders and civil liability issues
DRUNKEN DRIVING: BACKGROUND
for criminal justice professionals.
Drunken driving has been and remains a
serious societal problem in the United
A
States. The seemingly laissez-faire attitude
BSTRACT
While drunken driving arrest rates have plum-
toward drunken driving contributed to
meted since the 1980s, repeat drunken driving
high rates of impaired driving through
offenders remain a serious and often deadly
the 1980s. However, a combination of
problem. One intervention which has demon-
increased law enforcement efforts, stiffer
strated promise in reducing repeat Driving While
penalties, and a change in public perception
Intoxicated (DWI) offences is the ignition inter-
and opinion produced a substantial decrease
lock. The ignition interlock is a breath-alcohol
in the incidence of drunken driving
testing device attached to the ignition system of a
(Rogers & Schoenig, 1994). Arrest rates per
motor vehicle which prevents the vehicle from
100,000 drivers declined from 1,124 in
starting if the driver produces a breath sample
1986 to 809 in 1997 (Maruschak, 1999).
which exceeds a pre-determined alcohol level. The
The National Highway Traffic Safety
International Journal of Police
ignition interlock device also collects data as to the
Adminstration (2005) reports that alcohol-
Science and Management,
Vol. 11 No. 1, 2009, pp. 108–122.
number of attempted starts, breath-alcohol levels
related traffic fatalities have declined from
DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2009.11.1.115
from the starts, retests and violations resulting in
60 per cent in 1982 to 40 per cent in 2003.
Page 108
Fulkerson
Even with this improvement in driving
of penalties in the 50 states is beyond the
while intoxicated (DWI) enforcement and
scope of this paper.
reduction of alcohol-related traffic fatalites,
The issue of problem drinkers and DWI
it has been suggested that as many as one-
recidivism has been been identified and
third of drunk drivers involved in fatal
examined. It has been suggested that a
crashes have experienced a prior DWI
‘hard-core’ drinking driver should be
offence (Voas, 2001).
defined as one who has a history of multiple
Included in the legal reforms related to
DWI offences or has one offence with a
drinking and driving is the establishment of
high BAC level of 0.15 g/dl. As discussed in
illegal per se laws. It is a criminal law
the next section, the ignition interlock may
violation for a person to operate a vehicle
lessen the risk posed by hard-core drinking
with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
drivers. This group of offenders is noted to
of a specified level. Until recently this level
have a high risk of involvement in alcohol-
was 100 milligrams of ethanol per 100
related auto crashes (Simpson, Mayhew, &
millilitres of whole blood (0.10 g/dl).
Beirness, 1996; Voas, 2001). This group is
Between 1993 and 2003 43 states enacted
also less impacted by deterrence-oriented
legislation reducing the illegal per se limit
sanctions than are first offenders (Houston
to 0.08. As of December 2003, 46 states,
& Richardson, 2004). This study will, in
the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
part, examine the extent to which an inter-
had established or enacted 0.08 blood alco-
vention such as the ignition interlock
hol concentration as the legal limit for
reduces the incidences of impaired drivers
illegal per se DWI laws. Only Colorado,
on the highways. If deterrence theory is in-
Delaware, Maine and West Virginia
effective in reducing drunken driving, is an
remained with 0.10 as the illegal per se limit
alternative theory such as routine activites
(National Highway Traffic Safety Admin-
theory a viable response to DWI?
istration, 2005).
This study will examine the usage of the
Drunken driving is typically a misde-
ignition interlock device as a sentencing
meanour offence punishable by no more
option for DWI offenders. It will also con-
than one year in jail along with fines and
sider the ignition interlock in the theoret-
alcohol treatment, licence suspension and,
ical context of routine activities theory
as discussed in this paper, the ignition inter-
(Cohen & Felson, 1979) and how the inter-
lock device. Some repeat offences may be
lock may be categorised as an example of
classified as felonies and sentenced to longer
opportunity blocking (Clarke, 1995).
periods of incarceration (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA],
2005). While most states include a max-
IGNITION INTERLOCK
imum sentence of one year in jail as a part
The reduction in DWI arrests and alcohol-
of the disposition, it is very common for an
related fatalities has been attributed to a
offender to receive a suspended sentence or
number of factors, which include the above-
probation. This community-oriented pun-
noted tightening of penalties for DWI
ishment is conditional upon completion of
offenders, the change in social attitudes, and
alcohol treatment or other requirements. As
the introduction of the technology-based
discussed herein the ignition interlock may
intervention of the breath-analysed ignition
be one of the conditions of probation
interlock device (Baker & Beck, 1990;
(NHTSA). A complete analysis of the range
Beck, Rauch, & Baker, 1999; Fulkerson,
Page 109
Ignition interlock monthly data reports
2003). The ignition interlock is an elec-
comparison group of non-interlock of-
tronic device which is a portable breath-
fenders (Morse & Elliott, 1992). An evalu-
testing machine. It is typically a hand-held
ation of the interlock in Illinois found that
unit which is wired into the vehicle’s igni-
the interlock subjects were less than half as
tion system. The driver is required to pro-
likely to recidivate over a four-year period
vide a breath sample which is analysed by
than a control group (Raub, Lucke, &
the unit. If the person’s breath alcohol level
Wark, 2001).
exceeds a predetermined level (usually
Another longitudinal study found a sig-
0.025 g/dl), the vehicle will not start (Baker
nificant reduction in subsequent DWI
& Beck).
arrests for repeat offenders and younger
Drivers are also required to continue
offenders over a three-year follow-up
providing breath samples at specified time
period (Fulkerson, 2003). This study found
intervals to prevent driver circumvention of
that multiple DWI offenders who were
the device by having a sober third party
ordered to use the interlock demonstrated
provide the initial sample. These subsequent
less than half the rate of subsequent arrests
samples are referred to as ‘rolling retests’
than the non-interlock multiple offenders.
(Haapaniemi, 1998). If the driver fails the
A Maryland study of repeat DWI offenders
retest or refuses to provide the required
also found a statistically significant reduc-
breath sample, the unit may be programmed
tion in subsequent DWI arrests over a two-
to cause the horn to sound until the driver
year follow-up period (Beck et al., 1999).
stops the vehicle, at which time it will not
The traditional DWI penalties of fines
start until the driver provides a...
To continue reading
Request your trial