Plano DWI Lawyer Blog

Among the DWI bills being considered by the Texas Legislature this session is one I nearly overlooked. Rep. Stefani Carter, R- Dallas has introduced H.B 982 , which would create an a new class A misdemeanor for failing to install or maintain an Ignition Interlock device on a car when ordered to do so.   An Ignition Interlock device is a machine that is installed in your car that is designed to indicate the presence of alcohol and disallow the car from starting if alcohol is detected.  

The bill was referred to the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee   in February and there has been no additional action taken since then according to the Texas Legislature Online.  

Rep. Todd Smith has introduced H.B. 189, which would authorize people charged with a first driving while intoxicated case in Texas to receive deferred adjudication.  Texas law does not presently allow for deferred adjudication in Driving While Intoxicated cases. In a deferred adjudication situation, no judicial finding of guilt is made and and the end of the deferral period the case is dismissed 

On its face then, the idea that deferred adjudication might be authorized for those arrested for Driving While Intoxicated in Texas might seem appealing to a person charged with Driving While Intoxicated. The law appears to have law enforcement support, and even M.A.D.D. has publicly endorsed the bill, at least in concept.  Sounds like a win, win doesn't it?   Often, the devil is in the details.

If H.B. 189 becomes law, it will require persons placed on deferred adjudication for DWI to have an Ignition Interlock device installed on any car that they own or operate.  An Ignition Interlock device is a machine that is installed in your car that is designed to indicate the presence of alcohol and disallow the car from starting if alcohol is detected.  This Ignition Interlock device is not presently a requirement for people convicted of DWI unless their alcohol concentration is over a specified amount, but it apparently will be for those placed on Deferred.

The new proposed bill would also prevent those that successfully complete deferred adjudication for DWI from sealing their record.  For most misdemeanor cases, when a person succesfully completes deferred adjudication they are eligible to petition the Court to seal their record.  This sealing is known as an Order of Non Disclosure and a person's ability to seek an Order of Non Disclosure is controlled by the Texas Government Code.  H.B. 189 specifically amends the relevant section of the Government Code to prohibit people who were on deferred adjudication for DWI from receiving an Order of Non Disclosure.

Finally, the first time dwi deferred will be used to enhance the punishment range of subsequent DWI convictions.

I understand the rationale behind the bill.  The goal is to remove a large number of DWI cases from the crowded dockets in Collin and Dallas County and all around Texas.  The thought is that if deferred adjudication is an option, many people with first time DWI cases would opt for the deferred. Under the bill as written however, I don't see the incentive.  You will need an Interlock that is not required by law if you were convicted.  You can never non disclose the deferred, and your deferred case can form the predicate for subsequent punishment enhancements. 

As an attorney representing DWI clients, I don't see the value right now, and ultimately for this proposed law to have its desired effect of unclogging dockets and moving cases, it will have to be written in a way that makes it an attractive alternative to trial. 

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.