I have previously posted about the Texas legislature this session, and the move to make changes to DWI laws here and here. As the session winds down, it appears that the lawmakers in Austin have at least one more proposed revision to the law. House Bill 4061 authored by Todd Smith R- Euless would expand the use of Ignition Interlock or Deep Lung Devices. An Ignition Interlock Device is a device which is installed in a car and is designed to prevent the car from starting if a breath sample submitted to the machine indicates an alcohol concentration over a pre set limit. The Bill would require anyone convicted of Driving While Intoxicated and placed on community supervision to have such a device installed. This new law would apply even to first time DWI convictions. This Bill has cleared the House. It's fate in the Senate remains uncertain. If passed, Texas would join only six other states to have made such a requirement.
While there is little room for debate that Driving While Intoxicated is a social ill, there is legitimate debate about the punishments to be imposed. This Bill, if passed, would not require Ignition Interlock devices for hard core, repeat offenders. Rather it would impose an obvious, obtrusive device in the car of every single person convicted of DWI. The law would make no distinction between the otherwise law abiding person who made one mistake, and the alcoholic who repeatedly drives while intoxicated. In my view, mandatory Ignition Interlock devices for first time DWI offenders who are over twenty one are an unwarranted intrusion into the personal sphere. The devices are already mandated in Texas for those under twenty one, or repeat offenders.
The organization known as MADD apparently does not have concerns about intrusions into the personal sphere. Accoording to their campaign to eliminate drunk driving, MADD not only supports the requirement of Ignition Interlock devices for all first time DWI offenders, it also supports the idea that equivalent technology be placed in all cars during the manufacturing process. In other words, if MADD's policy is adopted, all cars would be manufactured with the technology to detect alcohol.
It should be noted that the ignition interlock device is far from foolproof. Instead of using infrared spectrometry to measure a driver’s blood alcohol content, the interlock devices use a much less reliable fuel cell. The technology used in these devices results in false positive alcohol readings, which are often the product of contamination or malfunction. False positive alcohol readings result in far more than the inconvenience of not being able to start your car. In Massachusetts, for example, ignition interlock violations result in automatic 10 year or lifetime license revocations. These are extremely harsh penalties which are imposed based on the results produced by unreliable devices.
An employee of one interlock company instructed by client to bang her interlock device 5 times when it did not work. When she stated that it was still not working, he said “hit it harder.” Imagine that? These devices are far from the scientific test instruments which MADD makes them out to be. So many common foods, beverages, and other products have registered false positive readings. Examples include: flavored coffee, a cinnamon bun, sugarless gum, cough drops, mouthwash, toothpaste, hand sanitizer, cough medicine, windshield washer fluid, leaking anti-freeze, and protein bars. The IID simply cannot differentiate between many common substances and true breath alcohol.
Brian E. Simoneau
Mass. Ignition Interlock Lawyer
Nice post.