Relates to driving while intoxicated and the installation of ignition interlock devices

Summary of provisions

Section one of the bill provides that a person operating a vehicle with a conditional license while intoxicated or impaired would be subject to a charge of first degree aggravated unlicensed operation (AUO) of a motor vehicle, which is a class E felony.

Section two of the bill clarifies that youthful offenders are subject to ignition interlock requirements, and provides that the minimum period of interlock installation would be increased to 12 months, but reduced to six months upon submission of proof that the defendant installed and maintained an interlock device for at least six months, unless the court orders a longer interlock period. It also provides that the interlock period would commence from the earlier of the date of sentencing, or the date that an interlock device was installed in advance of sentencing.

Section three of the bill clarifies that a finding by a court of good cause for the lack of installation of an interlock device may include a finding that the person is not the owner of a motor vehicle if the person asserts, under oath, that he or she is not a vehicle owner and will not operate a vehicle during the period of interlock restriction except as may be otherwise authorized by law.

Justification

Chapter 496 of 2009, commonly known as Leandra's Law, was intended to create strict penalties for impaired drivers operating motor vehicles with minors present in the vehicle, Additionally, Leandra's Law instituted a new and more comprehensive ignition interlock requirement for impaired drivers.

While the law requires DWI offenders to install ignition interlock devices, the actual installation rate has been reported at less than one third. It is clear that many offenders are selling or transferring ownership of their vehicles in order to avoid installation of an interlock device, to address this issue, this bill would increase the minimum period of interlock installation would be increased to 12 months, but reduced to six months (the current minimum period) upon submission of proof that the defendant installed and maintained an interlock device for at least six months. A court may continue to order a longer interlock period in its discretion. It also provides that the interlock period could commence from the earlier of the date of sentencing, or the date that an interlock device was installed in advance of sentencing.

This legislation also addresses issues that arose from The Court of Appeals decision in People v Rivera (2010), which found that though the privileges of a person with a conditional license remain suspended, that person is not driving with a suspended license for purposes of § 511. The Court found instead that in adopting § 1196(7) the Legislature intended to set forth all conditions for driving with a conditional license. Therefore, a person who is granted the privilege of a conditional license faces a far lighter penalty for continuing to drive under the influence than does a person with a suspended license This bill remedies this situation by providing that a person operating a vehicle with a conditional license while intoxicated or impaired would be subject to a charge of first degree aggravated unlicensed operation (AUO) of a motor vehicle, which is a class E felony rather than a traffic infraction

Finally the legislation clarifies that a finding by a court of good cause for the lack of installation of an interlock device may include a finding that the person is not the owner of a motor vehicle if the person asserts, under oath, that he or she is not a vehicle owner and will not operate a vehicle during the period of interlock restriction except as may be otherwise authorized by law.

Legislative history

New Bill

Fiscal implications

None

Effective date

This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law and shall apply to violations committed on and after such date.