Relates to ignition interlock devices

• Democratic4
• Republican2

◆ The sponsor's argument

Why Jeremy Cooney says this is needed

Leandra's Law (chapter 496 of 2009) was intended to ensure that all DWI offenders are required as a condition of probation or conditional discharge to install and maintain an IID for a period of at least 12 months in any vehicle they own or operate, with compliance earning early release from the IID requirement. Despite the intention of the law, the utility of IID's is limited by their exceptionally low utilization rate. In New York, only 25% of drivers ordered to install an IID in their cars installed such a device. In NYC, 94% of drivers who were ordered to install an IID from 2010 to 2023 did not do so. Currently, when a defendant swears in court that they do not own a car at the time of their sentencing appearance, the court generally excuses them from installing an IID. Under the terms of the bill, the defendant would also have to avow that they did not own a car at the time of the arrest for the drunk driving incident and are not married to someone whose car they drive at least occasionally. The proposed change in the requirement for a good cause exception eliminates the defendant's abili- ty to defeat the IID order by giving their vehicle away to their spouse after their drunk driving arrest. This bill also stops DWI offenders sentenced to conditional discharge from simply "waiting out" their mandated 6 - 12-month IID sentence. Rather than automatically allowing a person to begin driving again following the IID period, despite never having installed and driven with an IID, this bill requires DWI offenders ordered to install an IID in a car they own or operate to also "regularly use the car with an IID as a condition for getting their license back. It is important to make sure that IID's are installed and used as a tool against drunk driving since they are proven to be effective in reducing DWI's. In a recent study comparing two states that have HD laws with two states that do not, the Governor's Highway Safety Association found a significant decrease in DWI recidivism in the states that had such laws compared to the states that did not. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration observed that states with stringent IID laws experience a 15% decrease in DWI-related traffic deaths compared to states lacking such laws. IID's reduce DWI's while they are installed by approximately 70%. IID's also teach people when not to drive; many people are in denial about their alcohol intake or their ability to function after drinking alcohol. IID's provide an effective behavioral feedback mech- anism to educate drivers about their fitness to get behind the wheel. Perhaps most importantly, IID's are the only available technology to stop people from driving while drunk. Finally, people who have their license suspended or revoked while they have an IID in place are not currently permitted to start their cars. When the car battery inevitably dies, it appears to the monitor that the IID has been disabled, and the person with the installed IID is punished with a fine or other penalty for non-compliance with the IID order. This bill would permit people with suspended or revoked licenses to start their parked cars and run them during the period of license suspension revocation to preserve their battery life and avoid the fees and penal- ties associated with non-compliance with the court's IID order.

This is the sponsor's own case for the bill, quoted from their memorandum. It is not Agora's description of what the bill does.