Transcript WHAT I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT IGNITION

IGNITION INTERLOCKS
AND DRUNK DRIVING
Richard Roth, PhD
Research Supported By
NM TSB, NHTSA, PIRE, and RWJ
Arkansas Interlock Institute June 15-16,2010
Sponsored by MADD and NHTSA
Drunk Driver Plows into Mexican Bike Race
One Dead, 10 Injured , June 1, 2008
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
2
130
Roth 2/2/10
Arkansas II Institute
3
An Ignition Interlock is an
Electronic Probation Officer
•
•
•
•
•
•
Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat
On duty 24 hours per day
Tests and Records daily BAC’s
Allows only Alcohol-Free Persons to Drive.
Reports All Violations to the Court
Costs Offender only $2.30 per day.
(1 less drink per day)
4
Interlocks are Effective,
Cost-Effective and Fair
• Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40-90%
• They reduce the economic impact of drunk driving by
$3 to $7 for every $1 of cost.
• Interlocks are perceived as a fair sanction by 85% of
over 12,000 offenders surveyed.
• ..But they only work if…
• you get them installed.
5
I. The New Mexico Program
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Evolution of Laws
Interlock Installations vs Time
Currently Installed Interlocks vs Time
Interlock Licenses Granted
Comparisons to Other States
6
I.1. The New Mexico Laws
• 1999 Optional Judicial Mandate for 2nd and 3rd DWI
• 2002 Mandatory Sentence for 1st Aggravated and All
Subsequent Offenders.
• 2002 Indigent Fund
• 2003 Ignition Interlock License available for all revoked
offenders with no waiting period. (Admin. Prog.)
• 2005 Mandatory Sentence: 1 yr for 1st; 2 yrs for 2nd; 3 yrs
for 3rd; and lifetime with 5 yr review for 4 or more.
• 2005 ALR and JLR periods increased
• 2009 No Unrestricted License without Interlock Period
• 2010 Objective Standard for Indigency
Roth 6/15/2010
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute
7
I.2.A
Interlocks in New Mexico
Installed, Removed, and Currently Installed
35,000
30,000
25,000
Mandatory Judicial Sanction:
1 yr for 1st; 2 yrs for 2nd;
3 yrs for 3rd; and Lifetime with
5 yr Review for 4 or more.
20,000
15,000
Mandatory Judicial Sanction
for 1st Ag. And All Subsequent
10,000
Optional Judicial Sanction
for 2nd and 3rd Conviction
Interlock
License
Act
5,000
0
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
8
I.2.B
Interlocks in New Mexico
Installed, Removed, and Currently Installed
45,000
41,128
40,000
35,000
29,123
30,000
25,000
20,000
12,005
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
Roth 4/1/10
Roth 6/15/2010
NHTSA/MADD Kansas Conference
9
12,039
I.3.
4/1/10
Jun-09
6/15/2010
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference
9769
10
I.4.
Roth 4/8/10
NM DWI Leadership
11
Texas
Roth 6/15/2010
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference
12
Maine
DC
Vermont
North Dakota
Hawaii
Rhode Island
Alabama
South Dakota
South Carolina
Minnesota
New Hampshire
Mississippi
Delaware
Tennessee
Indiana
Wyoming
Kentucky
Montana
Alaska
New Jersey
Nevada
Connecticut
Idaho
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Utah
West Virginia
Oklahoma
Arkansas
New York
Kansas
Georgia
Oregon
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Ohio
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Virginia
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
California
Florida
North Carolina
New Mexico
Colorado
Washington
Arizona
I.5.A
Currently Installed Interlocks by State
C urrently Ins talled Interloc ks by S tate
Data from 9 of 10 providers ; P lot by R ic hard R oth, P hD; A ug us t 2009
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0
New Mexico
Arizona
Washington
Colorado
Iowa
Maryland
North Carolina
West Virginia
Texas
Kansas
Nebraska
Oregon
Virginia
Arkansas
Louisiana
Utah
Missouri
Alaska
Wyoming
Oklahoma
Florida
Michigan
Illinois
Massachusetts
Idaho
Montana
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Georgia
Nevada
California
Wisconsin
Connecticut
New York
Delaware
Kentucky
New Jersey
South Dakota
New Hampshire
Indiana
Tennessee
Mississippi
Minnesota
South Carolina
Rhode Island
Vermont
North Dakota
Alabama
Hawaii
DC
Maine
I.5.B
Roth 6/15/2010
Per Capita Interlocks by State
Interlocks per 10,000 residents by state
Data from 9 of 10 providers; Plot by Richard Roth, PhD;August, 2009
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas Conference
13
I.5.C
14
I.5.D The NHTSA Measure
Roth 6/13/2010
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute
15
II. Measures of Effectiveness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Recidivism After a DWI Arrest
Recidivism After a DWI Conviction
Overall Statewide Recidivism vs Time
Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Crashes
Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Injuries
Reduction in Alcohol-Involved Fatalities
Correlation between Interlocks Installed and
Measures of Drunk Driving
8. New NHTSA Comparison Criteria: Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Fatalities per 100 MVM
9. Opinions of Interlocked Offenders
16
II.1.A Interlocked Offenders Have Much Less
Recidivism In the Year After a DWI Arrest
128,314 NM (ZIP) Residents arrested 2002-2008. IID are those who installed interlock within 1 year of arrest.
7/7/2015Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
17
II.1.B Interlocked Offenders Have Much Less
Recidivism In the Two Years After a DWI Arrest
109,897 NM (ZIP) Residents arrested 2002-2007. IID are those who installed interlock within 1 year of arrest
Roth 4/25/10
NM DWI Leadership
18
II.1.C DWI Re-Arrests Substantially Reduced
Recidivism of NM DWI Arrestees
15.7%
16%
14.9%
15%
13.7%
14%
Percent Re-Arrested
13.0%
13%
12.4%
12.1%
12%
11%
1yr
2yr
10%
9.1%
8.9%
9%
7.9%
8%
7.0%
7.0%
2005
2006
7.2%
7.0%
7%
6%
2001
2002
2003
2004
Year of Arrest
Roth 4/25/2010
NM DWI Leadership
2007
2008
2009
Roth 4/25/10
19
II.1.D Recidivism After a DWI Arrest in NM
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
20
II.2. Recidivism After a DWI Conviction
Recidivism of NM Drivers After a DWI CONVICTION
Between January 2003 and August 2007
Plot by Dick Roth 11/20/08
% Re-arrested within 1 year
10%
9.4%
9.2%
8.7%
9%
8%
7.8%
7%
6%
5%
Not Interlocked
4%
Interlocked
3.0%
2.8%
3%
1.7%
1.9%
2%
1%
0%
1
Roth 8/25/2009
2
3
Conviction Number
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
4+
21
II.3. Overall DWI Recidivism
Roth 2009
NHTSA/MADD Denver II Institute
22
II.4.
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
23
II.5.
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
24
II.6.A.
NM DWI Fatalities
35% Fewer in 2008 Than in 2004
Plot by Richard Roth; Feb. 25, 2009
240
220
225
214
200
219
194
180
191
160
176
140
143
120
100
2002
Roth 8/25/2009
2003
2004
2005
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
2006
2007
2008
25
II.6.B.
130
Roth 2/2/10
Arkansas II Institute
26
II.7.
Interlocks Installed And Three Measures of Drunk Driving
Z-scores Show a Correlation of -0.95
1.5
1.0
0.5
Interlocks
0.0
A-I Crashes
A-I Injuries
-0.5
A-I Fatalities
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
2002
Roth 4/27/10
2003
2004
2005
2006
NM DWI Leadership
2007
2008
Roth 5/12/2010
27
II.8.
38 % Reduction
28
II.9.
Survey of 1513 Interlocked Offenders
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
88% Helpful in avoiding another DWI
83% Helpful at reducing their drinking
89% Effective at reducing their drunk driving
70% Cost-Effective..benefits outweigh the costs
80% A Fair Sanction For DWI Offenders
72% All convicted DWI’s should have interlocks
63% All arrested DWI’s should have interlocks.
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
29
III. INTERLOCK PROGRAMS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Identify Goals
Increase Incentives
Eliminate Hoops
Close Loopholes
Triage Sanctions
Research
30
III.1. Identify Goals
Effective, Cost-Effective, and Fair
Reduction of Drunk Driving.
• Get interlocks installed ASAP after DWI.
• Get all offenders to install.
• Keep interlocks installed until there is
evidence of changed behavior.
31
III.2. Increase the Incentives
•
•
•
•
•
Right to Drive Legally
Right to Re-register Vehicle
Avoid Electronic Sobriety Monitoring
Avoid Jail
Satisfy one requirement for an Unrestricted
License
• Deferred prosecution
32
III.3. Eliminate the Hoops
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Period of Hard Revocation
Fines and Fees Paid
Outstanding legal obligations
Alcohol Screening and Assessment
Medical Evaluation
DWI School
Victim Impact Panel
Community Service
33
III.4. Close Loopholes
•
•
•
•
•
Waiting out Revocation Period.
“No Car” or “Not Driving” Excuse.
Driving While Revoked.
Driving a non-interlocked vehicle.
Warrants for Non-compliance
34
III.5. Triage Up in Sanctions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extension of Interlock Period
Photo Interlock
Home Photo Breathalyzer
SCRAM
Treatment
House Arrest
Jail
35
III.6. Research
Measures of Effectiveness
•
•
•
•
•
•
Interlocks per Arrested Offender
Recidivism of Interlocked vs Not Interlocked.
Reduction in Overall Recidivism.
Reduction in DWI Crashes.
Reduction in DWI Injuries.
Reduction in DWI Fatalities.
36
IV. What We Have Learned in NM
• Judicial Mandates get more interlocks installed
than Administrative requirements. 3 to 1 in NM.
• First offenders must be included because they are
60% to 80% of all DWI offenders, and almost as
likely to be re-arrested as subsequent offenders.
• There must be an Interlock License available
ASAP.
• Revoked offenders are 3-4 times more likely to be
re-arrested for DWI than interlocked offenders.
• Hard revocation periods just teach offenders that
they can drive without being arrested.
• Given a choice, most offenders choose revocation
over interlock …and they keep driving after drinking.
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
37
V. Loopholes that Remain in NM
1. “No Car” or “Not Driving” excuse SB308 2009
2. No interlock between arrest and adjudication
(Learning, DWI, Absconding) SB270 2009
3. Ineffective Penalty for DWR ..SB307 2009
4. Possibility of waiting out revocation period
without installing an interlock
5. No Objective Standard for Indigency
6. Insufficient Funding: Increase Alcohol Excise Tax
7. Refusals….Enforce Implied Consent.. BAC
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
38
Loopholes that Remain in NM
V.1. “No Car” or “Not Driving”
The FIX
Task Force
1. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring:
A. As a condition of Probation
B. For all who claim “No Car” or “Not Driving
C. For the same period and cost as an interlock
D. Paid for by the offender
E. Minimum of morning and evening checks per day.
F. Eg. Smart Start IN-HOM Photo Breathalyzer.
2. A fee equal to the cost of an interlock to be used for supervised
probation.
Expected Result
More Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
39
Loopholes that Remain in NM
V.2. No Interlock Between Arrest and
Adjudication.
The Problem:
A. Some Offenders re-offend between arrest and adjudication
B. Some offenders abscond. i.e. they are a flight risk.
C. Offenders learn that they can drive while revoked with a low probability of
apprehension
The FIX
Task Force
1. Immobilization or Interlock between Arrest and Adjudication or
2. Void Vehicle Registration on Arrest (unless interlock is installed or
arrest is successfully appealed) or
3. Interlock as a condition of bond
Expected Result
More Interlocks, Less Absconding, Fewer DWI’s between Arrest
and Adjudication
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
40
Loopholes that Remain in NM
V.3. Ineffective Penalty for DWR
Too Strong..Not Applied
The FIX (SB 307)
Vehicle Forfeiture for Driving While
Revoked without an Interlock
Expected Result
More Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving
Compromise-Task Force
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
41
Loopholes that Remained in NM
V.4. Offenders Wait Out the
Revocation Period without Interlock
The FIX SB 275
No Unrestricted License without a period of Interlock
•
•
•
•
All those revoked for DWI
must have a minimum of 6 months of driving with an interlock and an
interlock license, and
Must fulfill any Judicial Interlock Mandate
Before they are eligible for an unrestricted license.
Expected Result
More Interlocks, Less Recidivism, Less Drunk Driving
SB 275 Became NM Law July 1, 2009
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
42
V.5. With No Objective Standard,
NM Judges Certify up to 35% as Indigent.
NM Indigent Fund Income and Outgo
For 9000 currently installed interlocks $100 per year from non-indigents,
$300,000 from State, 5% to Administration, $500 per year to indigents.
Gross Inc
Gross Outgo
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
$200,000
$0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Percent Indigent
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
43
VI. Myths About First Offenders
1. First Offenders Drove Drunk Once
2. Are Not Alcohol Abusers or Alcoholics
3. Are a Negligible Part of the DWI Problem
4. Are Less Likely to be Re-Arrested
5. Are Not Responsible for Most DWI Fatalities
6. Interlocks are not cost-effective for them
7. Interlocks are a not a fair sanction for them
8. Interlocks are not effective for them
9. Interlocks are too lenient. Revoke them.
10. Sanctions are more important than prevention.
44
VI.1
First Offenders Are Not First Offenders
They have driven an average of 500 times
after drinking before their first arrest.
R. Roth. Anonymous surveys of convicted DWI offenders at
Victim Impact Panels in Santa Fe, NM
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
45
VI.2
46
VI.3
Percent First Offenders vs Lookback Time in NM
2006-8 Data from CTS; Plot by Dick Roth 3/18/09
100%
95%
90%
81% of Convictions are "First in 5 years"
85%
80%
75%
70%
74% of
Arrests are
"First in 5 years"
65%
60%
55%
50%
0
Roth 8/25/2009
5
10
15
Lookback Time (Years)
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
20
25
47
VI. 4. First Offenders are Just as Dangerous
as Subsequent Offenders
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
48
VI.5
What Fraction of Impaired Drivers in
Fatal Crashes are First Offenders?
NHTSA Definitions;
Impaired Driver: BAC >= 0.08
First Offender: No BAC Conviction in Previous 3 Years.
92 %
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.pdf page 4
Roth 6/15/10
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute
49
VI.8 Effective
VI:6 Cost Effective
Recidivism of Convicted First Offenders
10,117 Interlocked; 33,348 Not Interlocked
Recidivism of 1st Offenders While Interlocked
Recidivism of First Offenders
.08
With and Without Interlock
.07
Fraction Re-arrested Ffor DWI
.3
.06
.05
.04
.03
.02
Group
.01
.1
Group
Not Interlocked
0.00
0.00
.2
Interl ocked
.25
.50
.75
Not Interlocked
0.0
1.00
T1: Time During Installation or Equivalent
1
2
3
4
5
6
Total Time After Installation or Conviction
Univariate HR(CG/IG)= 4.52
Multivariate HR(CG/IG)= 4.01
Roth 6/13/2010
Interl ocked
0
Univariate HR(CG/IG)= 1.77
Multivariate HR(CG/IG)= 1.59
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute
50
VI.10 The importance of Prevention and General Deterrents
DWI First Offenders in NM
% of First Offenders
Each Year a Greater Fraction of DWI Offenders are First
Offenders. This indicates that our sanctions have been
more successful than our prevention efforts .
68%
66%
64%
62%
60%
58%
56%
54%
52%
50%
1st in 10 Years
1st since 1984
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year of Arrest
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
51
VII. Young Offenders
1. Have the highest DWI arrest rates
2. Have the highest re-arrest rates
3. Have the highest DWI crash rates
52
VII.1.
NM DWI Citations by Age Group
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Roth 8/25/2009
DWI Citations Fall Off
Dramatically With Age
Underage drinkers do not have
the highest arrest rate, but
2007
2002
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
53
VII.2 Those who have their first DWI before 21 have the highest 5 year re-arrest rate.
Recidivism of First Offenders in NM
For 147,808 Offenders Arrested Between 1991 and 2003
% Re-arrested within 5 years
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75
Age Group
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
54
VII.3.
Severe Alcohol-Involved Crash Rate
Crashes per 1000 Drivers in NM in 2004
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
15-20
21-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-64
65+
Age Range
7/7/2015
Every Drink Increases the Risk
55
VIII. Miscellaneous Findings
1. Females are an increasing fraction of DWI
2. Longer interlock periods are more effective
for subsequent offenders.
3. How do interlocked offenders get re-arrested
for DWI?
4. Variations in Installation Rate by County.
5. Crime and Punishment
56
VIII.1.
Fraction of DWI Offenders That Are
Female vs Year of Arrest
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1980
Roth 8/25/2009
1985
1990
1995
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
2000
2005
2010
57
VIII. 2. Recidivism vs Duration of Interlock….PRELIMINARY DATA
One Minus Survival Function
AGROUP =
One Minus Survival Function
1
AGROUP =
.30
.25
.25
.20
.20
One Minus Cum Survival
.30
.15
2
.15
Duration
.10
Duration
.10
>400 days
.05
300-400
0.00
<300 days
0
1
2
T3 Time After Arrest
3
4
>400 days
.05
300-400
0.00
5
<300 days
0
1 year is Best
1
2
3
One Minus Survival Function
One Minus Survival Function
AGROUP =
AGROUP =
.30
.25
.25
.20
.20
One Minus Cum Survival
.30
.15
5
A year or more is best
T3
3
4
4
(4th or More)
.15
Duration
.10
Duration
.10
>400 days
.05
300-400
0.00
<300 days
0
T3
1
2
3
4
5
More than a year is best
Roth 8/25/2009
>400 days
.05
300-400
0.00
<300 days
0
T3
1
2
3
4
5
More than a year is best
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
58
VIII.3.Sample of 15,109 Interlocked In
New Mexico
Not Arrested
While Interlocked
Arrested In
Interlocked
. Vehicle
N=~92 0.6%
Arrested In
Vehicle With
a Different
License
Plate
N=~287
1.9%
N=14,730 97.5%
Roth
Interlock Symposium 2007
59
VIII.4.
60
VIII.5. Whether a drunk driver
gets home safely or kills someone
does not depend on
1.Prior Drunk Driving Trips
2.Prior DWI Arrests
3.Prior DWI Convictions
It just depends on a four letter word
that rhymes with “duck”.
LUCK
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
61
IX.Model Ignition Interlock Program
by Dick Roth October 20, 2009
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. Electronic Sobriety Monitoring for convicted
offenders who claim “no vehicle” or “not driving.
Daily requirement of morning and evening
alcohol-free breath tests as a condition of
probation.(or $1000/yr for supervised 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.
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
62
Model Ignition Interlock Program
by Dick Roth October 20, 2009 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. (or Void Registration or Bond
Requirement)
6. Vehicle forfeiture for driving a noninterlocked vehicle while revoked for DWI.
7. No end to revocation period before
satisfaction of at least one year of alcoholfree 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.
Roth 8/25/2009
NHTSA/MADD Orlando Conference
63
Richard Roth, PhD
Executive Director Impact DWI
[email protected]
Impact DWI Websites
www.ImpactDWI.org
.www.PEDAforTeens.org
www.AlcoholTaxIncrease.org
www.RothInterlock.org
Roth 6/15/2010
NHTSA/MADD Arkansas II Institute
64