MICHIGAN’S IGNITION INTERLOCK LAW-EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 31,
2010
One of the most important purposes of Michigan drunk driving
laws is to prevent crashes, severe injuries and deaths caused by impaired
drivers. Still, alcohol-impaired driving takes an enormous toll in the
United States, killing approximately one person every 45 minutes.[1] In
2008, nearly 11, 773 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes,
accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the
United States.[2] Of the 216 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died
in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2008, about half (99) were riding in the
vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver.[3]

Although, there is no
single strategy that will solve this serious problem, technology presents great
possibilities in the area of impaired driving prevention. One of these
promising strategies is the Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID), or
more commonly know as the ignition interlock.
What is an ignition interlock? It is a device that is
installed in a vehicle's dashboard. Before the vehicle's motor can be
started, the driver blows into a mouthpiece attached to the device, which then
measures the individual's BAC level. If the driver does not have a BAC
level at or above the pre-set level, usually .025, then the vehicle will
start. The National Highway Traffic Safety (NHTSA) standards require the
"failure" to be within +.01 of the pre-set limit, with the lockout set at
.025.
It should be noted that the BAIID also may be set for
"running" retests, which require a driver to provide further breath tests at
various times once the driver has started the vehicle. The "running"
retests stops a driver from asking someone else to start the vehicle and then
thereafter, the driver begins to drink alcohol while driving. A "running"
retest failure is logged in the driver's data recorder, and it also sends an
audible and visual warning so that other vehicles on the highway will be aware
of this vehicle on the highway.
In the past several years, the research has shown that the
BAIID when properly installed in the vehicle is effective in preventing drunk
driving. Research also has shown that BAIID is an effective tool to
prevent individuals from driving drunk.[4] Research also has shown that
ignition interlocks reduced re-offending among first-time offenders and repeat
impaired driver offenders, with reductions in subsequent impaired driving
arrests ranging from 50 to 90 percent.[5] Nevertheless, the public, some
police officers and prosecutors are not familiar with the BAIID and why this
device is important in combating drunk driving.
The use of the BAIID is beginning to spread across the United
States. Soon, the State of Michigan will be one of the states that will
provide for more of an effective use of the BAIID for first time offenders in
drunk driving criminal cases.
Effective, October 31, 2010, Michigan will amend various
sections of the Michigan Vehicle Code pertaining to the BAIID. Some of the
key changes are:
** Create a high BAC category of “operating while
intoxicated” for individuals having a BAC of 0.17 grams or more.
** Provide enhanced penalties for a high BAC offense. A
first offense high BAC would be a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 180
days (increased from 93 days) and/or a fine of at least $200 but not more than
$700 (increased from not less than $100 but not more than $500). The
maximum community service that could be imposed would remain at no more than 360
hours. The penalties for a subsequent high BAC offense would be the same
as for any repeat drunk driving offense.
** Require the Secretary of State (SOS) to suspend the
driver’s license of an individual for a high BAC offense for one year if he or
she had no prior convictions within the previous seven years or not more than
two convictions within ten years. A restricted license would have to be
issued, but not during the first 45 days of suspension.
** Require a person convicted of a high BAC offense from
operating a vehicle under a restricted license unless the vehicle was equipped
with an approved and properly installed ignition interlock device.
“Ignition interlock device”, as defined in the bill, would include devices
calibrated so that the vehicle could not be started if the BAC level of the
operator reached .025.
** Prohibit a person issued a restricted license requiring an
ignition interlock device from removing the device or causing it to be removed
unless the SOS issued an order authorizing its removal.
** Require, before an ignition interlock device is ordered
removed by SOS, verification that the person had operated the vehicle with no
instances of reaching or exceeding a BAC of .025.
** Require the SOS to impose an additional period of license
suspension and restriction if the person violated the conditions of the
restricted license or attempted to operate a vehicle with a BAC of 0.025.
This provision would not apply to a start-up test failure within the first two
months after the device had been installed.
** Require that courts imposed mandatory rehabilitation for
offenders convicted under this offense.
Every day, 32 people in the United States die, in motor
vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. The annual cost
of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $51 billion.[6] Perhaps the
Michigan ignition interlock law will be an effective measure that can help
prevent injuries and death from is amount from alcohol-impaired driving.
For more information on these cases and statutes and PAAM
training programs, contact Kenneth Stecker, Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor,
at (517) 334-6060 or e-mail at
steckerk@michigan.gov. Please consult
your prosecutor before adopting practices suggested by reports in this article.
Discuss your practices that relate to these statutes with your commanding
officers, police legal advisors, and the prosecuting attorney before changing
your practices in reliance on a reported legislative change.
[1] Department of United States Transportation, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts 2008.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4]
Voas, R.B. and Marques, P.R. (20030. Commentary: Barriers to
Interlock Implementation. Traffic Injury Prevention 4(3):
183-187.
[5] Id.
[6] See footnote No. 1 for reference.