Closing the “No Car” Loophole In Ignition Interlock Legislation by pptfiles

VIEWS: 15 PAGES: 14

									Closing the “No Car” Loophole In Ignition Interlock Legislation Research and Recommendations
Richard Roth, PhD. Executive Director, Impact DWI Research Supported By NM TSB, PIRE, NHTSA, and RWJ
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium Dick Roth 1

The Santa Fe Pilot Program
• In Santa Fe, NM between 2003 and 2005, Interlocks were mandatory for 1st Aggravated and above, but not for Firsts with BAC<.16 • Three Magistrate Judges and one Municipal Judge agreed to mandate interlocks for all convicted offenders, and • To require house arrest as an alternative to interlock for those who claimed “no car”. • The NM TSB funded evaluation of the Program.
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 2

Highest Recorded Installation Rate Was Achieved
Percent of Convicted Offenders that Installed Interlocks Between their Arrest and One Year after their Conviction For Santa Fe and Other New Mexico Courts

80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

71%

28% 13% 16%

SF Magistrate SF Municipal Other Courts All NM Courts 814 / 1145 154 / 543 2718 / 20685 3686 / 22373
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 3

Statewide Interlocked Offenders had 62% less Recidivism Cox Multivariate P.H. Regression: HR 0.38 95%CI 0.28-0.52

Recidivism Within One Year Of Conviction
While Interlocks Are Installed
.08 .07 .06 .05 .04 .03 .02 .01 0.00 0.00 .25 .50 .75 1.00

Group
CG IG

Time After Conviction (years)
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 4

Statewide Interlocked Offenders had 39% Less Recidivism over 3 years Cox Multivariate P.H. Regression: HR 0.71 95%CI 0.63-0.81

Recidivism After Conviction
.20 .18 .16 .14 .12 .10 .08 .06 .04 .02 0.00 0.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Group
CG IG

Time After Conviction (years)
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 5

While Interlocked Santa Fe Interlocked Offenders Had 61% less Recidivism than non-interlocked offenders HR 0.39 95%CI 0.22-0.68
Recidivism of Santa Fe Offenders
.10 .09 .08 .07 .06 .05 .04 .03 .02 .01 0.00 0.00 .25 .50 .75 1.00

N(CG)=788

N(IG)=729
Group
CG IG

Time After Conviction (years)
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 6

For Three Years After Conviction SF Interlocked Offenders had 15% less recidivism than Non-Interlocked offenders; HR = 0.85 95% CI 0.65-1.10
Recidivism For Santa Fe Courts
During Interlock and After Removal
.20 .18 .16 .14 .12 .10 .08 .06 .04 .02 0.00 0.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 CG IG

Group

Time After Conviction (years)
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 7

The High Installation Rate in Santa Fe County Reduced Overall Recidivism More Than the Lower Installation Rate in the State
Statewide recidivism decreased when Interlocks became mandatory.

Recidivism of 4855 SF County DWI Offenders
Recidivism of 58779 NM DWI Offenders Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law
Fraction Rearrested for DWI
.16 .14 .12 .10 .08 .06 .04 .02 0.00 0.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law
.16

Before A 29% Reduction

A 16% Reduction

.14 .12 .10 .08 .06

After 8.7% Before

8.0% Before

6.7% After
Year of Conv
2001-2 2003-5

6.2% After

.04 .02 0.00 0.0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Year of Conv
2001-2 2003-5

Time after Conviction (years)

Time after Conviction (years)

10/29/2008

Illinois Interlock Symposium

8

Installation Durations were short.
Average of 181 days for first offenders; 365 days for subsequent offenders.
400

300

200

100 Std. Dev = 161.25 Mean = 208.5 0 25.0 125.0 225.0 325.0 425.0 N = 844.00

Duration of interlock Installation (days)
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 9

Longer Installation Times Are More Effective At Reducing Recidivism
One Minus Survival Function C_GP = First
.3

.2

.1

Interlock Time
> 400 day s

0.0

251-400 day s 126-250 day s

-.1 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

1-125 day s

T3
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 10

Conclusions
• Mandating an alternative sanction of house arrest for those who claimed not to be driving led to a record high installation rate of interlocks in Santa Fe Magistrate Court. • The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interlocks was supported by data from Santa Fe Courts and from the entire state.

10/29/2008

Illinois Interlock Symposium

11

Postscript
• In 2005, NM District Court ruled that judges could not substitute a “General Sanction”, ie house arrest, for a sanction specified in the law, ie Interlock. • Attempts to put alternatives such as House Arrest, Sobrieter, or SCRAM into the law have been unsuccessful so far. • New Proposals will be introduced in Jan, 2009
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 12

Model Ignition Interlock Program
by Dick Roth October 27, 2008

1. Mandatory Interlocks as a condition of probation for all convicted offenders. 1 yr for 1st, 2 yrs for second, 3 yrs for 3rd, and 5 yrs for 4 or more. 2. Mandatory Home Photo-Id Breathalyzer for convicted offenders who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving….. with a mandate of daily morning and evening alcohol-free breath tests as a condition of probation. 3. An ignition interlock license available to all persons revoked for DWI with no other restrictions. Allow MVD to set fee to cover cost.
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 13

Model Ignition Interlock Program
by Dick Roth October 27, 2008 continued

4. An Indigent Fund with objective standards such as eligibility for income support or food stamps. 5. Vehicle immobilization or interlock between arrest and adjudication. 6. Vehicle forfeiture for driving a non-interlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI. 7. No end to revocation period before satisfaction of at least one year of alcohol-free driving with an IID. (eg. ≥ 5000 miles and ≥ 1 year with no BAC>0.05 by any driver) 8. Criminal sanction for circumvention of IID.
10/29/2008 Illinois Interlock Symposium 14


								
To top