New York’s groundbreaking Leandra’s Law had its first official challenge last month when an offender sentenced to the mandatory year of ignition interlock challenged his sentence after failing to install the system in the required timeframe, then failing subsequent uploads and tests.
Ernan Perez’s challenge represents the first reported one to the state law, but it really served to highlight the loopholes in program enforcement that plague the majority of interlock programs.
Since the law went into effect in August 2010, the Queens District Attorney’s Office has been monitoring a reported 3,836 cases throughout New York City. Of that number, 2,818—an astounding 73%—indicated they either did not own a car or have sold or transferred ownership of their vehicle. When a claim of selling or transfer of title is made, the DA’s staff requires a litany of documents as proof, which are all tracked and verified.
In total, 24% of those in New York City convicted under Leandra’s Law and required to install ignition interlock actually did so. Statewide, one-third have complied with the law.
Lawmakers rallied in 2012 in an effort to close this loophole, requiring that anyone claiming they no longer have a vehicle wear a Continuous Alcohol Monitoring device in lieu of the interlock. The goal is to deter false reporting on the sale of the vehicles or transfer of the title to family or friends (and the large amount of staff time required to administer the claims) with the incentive that CAM monitoring is more costly than the interlock. It also ensures convicted drunk drivers don’t “get off” without some level of monitoring.
The Republican-led Senate passed the initiative in May and garnered the report of district attorneys statewide, as well as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. But it stalled in the House in June, with media reports speculating that the costs to the offender and a perceived increase in required staffing to manage the technology as the primary reasons.
Leandra’s Law specifically requires offenders to pay for their year of ignition interlock, as well as the proposed CAM monitoring, an important point in a state that is widely known to be opposed to the offender-pay model.
As any provider of GPS, house arrest/home detention, ignition interlock, or CAM will tell you, offender-pay is the predominant system in place across most of the U.S. for funding community corrections programs. In fact offenders in most every state are required to contribute all or a significant portion of the costs of mandatory education, treatment, polygraphs, and drug and alcohol testing as a requirement of probation or parole.
Our own data shows that 83% of programs nationwide using SCRAM CAM require offenders to contribute, all or a portion, to the bottom line. For those offenders who qualify, a variety of models are in place, from accessing grants and funding to sliding scales and payment plans that can accommodate most every economic requirement.
In New York, monitoring tools go through a contracting process at both the State and County level to ensure cost compliance. And in the last year, despite more than 500 active SCRAMx participants in the state of New York, not a single agency added more people to cover the workload. Actually, most have seen staff cuts due to budget constraints.
Perez was found in violation of his conditional discharge, was sentenced to 30 days in jail, an additional year on ignition interlock, and six months on SCRAMx. Add to that the costs for an attorney to challenge his obvious violation of Leandra’s Law, and it seems a period on SCRAMx would have been substantially less expensive.
Despite our position in the market, we are advocates of ignition interlock technology, both as a community safety tool and as a behavior modification tool for first-time DUI offenders—precisely the offenders targeted in Leandra’s Law.
What are your thoughts on the proposed modifications to the law in New York State? Does it close an important loophole? Is it unfairly burdening offenders by requiring they pay for the monitoring?
