Illinois lawmaker Randy Ramey (R) has authored a new DUI bill, HB5214. The intent of the new law is to strengthen the existing BAIDD (ignition interlock) laws by authorizing the use of Continuous Alcohol Monitoring (CAM) as an alternative for offenders who apply for and are granted a monitoring device driving permit (MMDP) after serving a 31-day suspension. Ramey, who was convicted of a DUI in 2011, said in an article published in the Daily Herald, that he was given the choice to wear a CAM device for 90 days, and he is proposing the technology as “less-invasive” alternative to interlock for qualifying offenders.
But the most notable change in the bill is the requirement for abstinence from alcohol for those individuals who are granted an MMDP. The requirement for abstinence–along with the requirement to effectively monitor for it–is a trend moving through the U.S. The most high-profile DUI law last year, North Carolina’s Laura’s Law (named after teenage victim Laura Fortenberry, killed by a 3 time drunk driver), took effect this year. Delaware, Arizona, Tennessee, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana and both North and South Dakota all have passed laws in the last year hitting hard on hardcore drunk drivers by weaving required sobriety and monitoring into state laws.
This paradigm shift is driven by research of Hardcore Drunk Drivers (HDD), defined as “drivers who drive with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .15 or above, who do so repeatedly as demonstrated by having more than one drunk driving arrest, and who are highly resistant to changing their behavior despite previous sanctions, treatment or education.” The vast majority of HDDs test positive for alcohol dependence, and the new laws are working to monitor and modify long-term behavior for this population of drunk drivers. HDDs are responsible for 70% of fatal alcohol-related traffic accidents.
A fair criticism of Ramey’s proposal is that 24/7 monitors will not stop a vehicle from being driven by an individual who is impaired, and that is a legitimate concern. Proponents of the bill counter that interlocks are only effective when they’re actually installed, a process issue that plagues every state with interlock requirements. A recent study released by the Insurance Institute on Highway Safety reported that after the implementation of Washington State’s first-time DUI offender laws, only 36% of those required to install the devices actually did so.
But the notable part of the study is the long-term behavioral impact of interlocks on first-time DUI offenders–who have a far lower rate of alcohol dependence than repeat offenders. For decades, research of interlock use on HDDs showed no long-term behavior change. Presumably because interlocks–when installed–don’t monitor sobriety, just sobriety while driving.
Bottom line: Ramey’s bill doesn’t propose replacing interlock with CAM, simply making it an option. But HB5214 will require abstinence regardless.
There is no silver bullet. But technologies are taking center stage in the battle, and legislators seem to be trending toward an understanding that there is a place for both sanctioning vehicles and monitoring the people who commit the crimes. We couldn’t agree more.
What are your thoughts on this trend in DUI legislation?
Love the article! This is absolutely necessary. I was hit by a drunk driver. I am in complete support of more monitoring and harsher punishments for offenders. DUI is a 100% preventable crime.
My condition of bond requirements also include abstinence from alcohol. As a JP in Texas, we have the obligation to help DUIs stop the carnage.