Newsletters

By: David Wallace

A bill that has been watched by many in the DWI court field has passed Congress. For DWI courts, an issue for a second or subsequent offender has always been the ability to get to and from court, or work, or treatment since the Federal SAFETEA-LU Act required that their license be suspended for a minimum of 1 year. States could impose higher requirements, for second or subsequent, but that was the bare minimum according to SAFETEA-LU.

In the current Congress, House Resolution 1195 was submitted which was the “SAFETEA-LU Technical Corrections Act of 2008.” It has passed Congress and been signed by the president. One of the changes incorporated by H.R. 1195 was the following: To amend the federal highway law to revise the term "repeat intoxicated driver law" to mean a state law that provides, as a minimum penalty, that an individual convicted of a second or subsequent offense for driving while intoxicated or driving under the influence after a previous conviction for that offense shall, among other things, receive: (1) a driver's license suspension for not less than one year (as under current law); or (2) a combination of suspension of all driving privileges for the first 45 days of the suspension period followed by a reinstatement of limited driving privileges for the purpose of getting to and from work, school, or an alcohol treatment program, if an ignition interlock device is installed on the motor vehicles the individual owns and/or operates. This means that states can now have as a driver’s license sanction a 45 day suspension for a repeat offender as long as there is an ignition interlock device and the license is a limited one for the purpose of getting to and from work, school, or an alcohol treatment program.

Do not forget that this does not rewrite the law in each of the states–it just provides for the option to change what the law currently requires. It is also important to note that this law did not provide an exception to drive to court ordered activities, such as reporting to probation, or appearing in court—especially on a DWI charge.

Finally, current studies on ignition interlocks demonstrate that they are effective in reducing DWI recidivism while installed. However, once the device is removed, DWI recidivism rates return to comparable levels for those that did not have a device installed. NCDC is striving to ensure ignition interlocks are used, but without long term treatment and ongoing judicial oversight, such as what happens in DWI courts, the outcomes are questionable.

Editor’s Note: David Wallace is the Director for the National Center for DWI Courts.