Ignition Interlock Monthly Data Reports

While drunken driving arrest rates have plummeted since the 1980s, repeat drunken driving offenders remain a serious and often deadly problem. One intervention which has demonstrated promise in reducing repeat Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) offences is the ignition interlock. The ignition interlock is a breath-alcohol testing device attached to the ignition system of a motor vehicle which prevents the vehicle from starting if the driver produces a breath sample which exceeds a pre-determined alcohol level. The ignition interlock device also collects data as to the number of attempted starts, breath-alcohol levels from the starts, retests and violations resulting in the vehicle being ‘locked out’ and unavailable for use. This paper examines the data reports collected on a sample of interlock users who were court-ordered to install the device as a result of a DWI conviction in the state of Arkansas. Almost half of the subjects experienced one or more violations with a breath alcohol level that exceeded the 0.08 g/dl legal limit. More than 20 per cent had violations at the very high level of 0.15 g/dl. These data suggest that the ignition interlock may be very effective in preventing DWI recidivism among the problem ‘hard-core’ drunk driver. DRUNKEN DRIVING: BACKGROUND Drunken driving has been and remains a serious societal problem in the United States. The seemingly laissez-faire attitude toward drunken driving contributed to high rates of impaired driving through the 1980s. However, a combination of increased law enforcement efforts, stiffer penalties, and a change in public perception and opinion produced a substantial decrease in the incidence of drunken driving (Rogers & Schoenig, 1994). Arrest rates per 100,000 drivers declined from 1,124 in 1986 to 809 in 1997 (Maruschak, 1999). The National Highway Traffic Safety Adminstration (2005) reports that alcoholrelated traffic fatalities have declined from 60 per cent in 1982 to 40 per cent in 2003. Page 108 International Journal of Police Science & Management Volume 11 Number 1 International Journal of Police Science and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, 2009, pp. 108–122. DOI: 10.1350/ijps.2009.11.1.115 Even with this improvement in driving while intoxicated (DWI) enforcement and reduction of alcohol-related traffic fatalites, it has been suggested that as many as onethird of drunk drivers involved in fatal crashes have experienced a prior DWI offence (Voas, 2001). Included in the legal reforms related to drinking and driving is the establishment of illegal per se laws. It is a criminal law violation for a person to operate a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of a specified level. Until recently this level was 100 milligrams of ethanol per 100 millilitres of whole blood (0.10 g/dl). Between 1993 and 2003 43 states enacted legislation reducing the illegal per se limit to 0.08. As of December 2003, 46 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had established or enacted 0.08 blood alcohol concentration as the legal limit for illegal per se DWI laws. Only Colorado, Delaware, Maine and West Virginia remained with 0.10 as the illegal per se limit (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2005). Drunken driving is typically a misdemeanour offence punishable by no more than one year in jail along with fines and alcohol treatment, licence suspension and, as discussed in this paper, the ignition interlock device. Some repeat offences may be classified as felonies and sentenced to longer periods of incarceration (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2005). While most states include a maximum sentence of one year in jail as a part of the disposition, it is very common for an offender to receive a suspended sentence or probation. This community-oriented punishment is conditional upon completion of alcohol treatment or other requirements. As discussed herein the ignition interlock may be one of the conditions of probation (NHTSA). A complete analysis of the range of penalties in the 50 states is beyond the scope of this paper. The issue of problem drinkers and DWI recidivism has been been identified and examined. It has been suggested that a ‘hard-core’ drinking driver should be defined as one who has a history of multiple DWI offences or has one offence with a high BAC level of 0.15 g/dl. As discussed in the next section, the ignition interlock may lessen the risk posed by hard-core drinking drivers. This group of offenders is noted to have a high risk of involvement in alcoholrelated auto crashes (Simpson, Mayhew, & Beirness, 1996; Voas, 2001). This group is also less impacted by deterrence-oriented sanctions than are first offenders (Houston & Richardson, 2004). This study will, in part, examine the extent to which an intervention such as the ignition interlock reduces the incidences of impaired drivers on the highways. If deterrence theory is ineffective in reducing drunken driving, is an alternative theory such as routine activites theory a viable response to DWI? This study will examine the usage of the ignition interlock device as a sentencing option for DWI offenders. It will also consider the ignition interlock in the theoretical context of routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) and how the interlock may be categorised as an example of opportunity blocking (Clarke, 1995).