Alcohol Interlocks: AZ DUIs result in lock on ignition

Rethinking penalty for DUI
Legislators back off interlock device required for all 1st-time offenders

Jessica Coomes, The Arizona Republic
Jun. 13, 2007

Though not unprecedented, it’s highly unusual for the Legislature to try to make significant changes to a law during the same session it was approved by the House and Senate and signed by the governor.

Here’s how the debate unfolded Tuesday over a bill to replace Arizona’s new DUI law, considered one of the toughest in the country by requiring even first-time offenders to test their breath each time they start their car.

On one side, Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said the Legislature acted prematurely in requiring the interlocks. He couldn’t find any evidence to support the claim that ignition-interlock devices prevent first-time offenders from repeating their crime.

On the other side, Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, said the machines do work, and it doesn’t make sense to do nothing and just wait for the issue to be studied further.

Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe, had proposed the interlock provision signed by Gov. Janet Napolitano. He stood behind his work Tuesday, opposing Kavanagh’s changes.

“We’ve taken some pretty significant steps to become one of the leaders in DUI legislation,” Schapira said. In fact, New Mexico was the only other state to require ignition-interlocks for a year for first-time offenders whose blood-alcohol content is at least 0.08 percent. The House gave preliminary approval Tuesday to a new bill that would get rid of the breath-testing requirement. Kavanagh tacked his changes onto another DUI-related bill, Senate Bill 1582. The measure’s sponsor, Sen. Linda Gray, R-Glendale, said she would not support Kavanagh’s changes in the Senate, which means a conference committee will be appointed to work out differences.

Gray, who has been one of the Legislature’s advocates for tough DUI laws, said she may support a compromise between the law and Kavanagh’s proposal. For example, she would support cutting the interlock time to six months for first-time offenders with a blood-alcohol content between 0.08 and 0.10 percent.

However, Gray said she heard rumblings from the governor’s office that Napolitano would not agree to any weakening of the new interlock law. Jeanine L’Ecuyer, a spokeswoman for Napolitano, said the governor won’t comment on pending legislation because the bill could change before it reaches her desk.

Ericka Espino, state executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Arizona, said Kavanagh’s changes would be a “devastating blow,” but she is confident the bill will be improved in the conference committee.

“Knowing that we’ve got such great support out there, we’re happy about that. We’re very optimistic,” Espino said.

The original interlock measure overwhelmingly passed the House, 54-2, and the Senate, 26-2. Like most of his colleagues, Kavanagh supported the bill.

“We all thought we were doing the right thing,” Kavanagh said, but he changed his mind after he had time to review research on the topic. “We need to do something, but it has to be the right thing. The stakes are too high.”

Under Kavanagh’s changes, the only first-time, non-extreme offenders to be required to have an interlock installed for six months would be those drivers who also cause an accident in which someone gets hurt or property is damaged.

Another lawmaker who changed his mind on the issue, Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said he cast his original vote with the understanding that it would be softened in a conference committee. But a conference committee was never convened, and the bill was sent to the governor with the tough provision.

Other lawmakers offered their reasons for wanting to scale back the use of interlocks:

• They can’t be installed on motorcycles, which means people who drive only motorcycles have no way to get around, said Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-Glendale.

• The cost for the devices, which must be paid by the offender, will hurt a family’s budget, said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix.

• The punishment is unfair to women, who often are smaller than men and reach a high blood-alcohol concentration more quickly, said Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson. “With all due respect, you guys have more fat than I do,” Bedford said to some of her male colleagues on the House floor.

If Kavanagh’s measure fails, the law with the ignition interlock requirement will go into effect 90 days after this legislative session ends. Regardless of what happens, the current law requiring interlocks for repeat offenders and extreme drunken drivers will remain.
Reach the reporter at (602) 444-6848 or jessica.coomes@arizonarepublic.com.

---

All DUIs to result in lock on ignition

May. 19, 2007
Jessica Coomes, The Arizona Republic
?
If you’re convicted of a DUI, expect to spend a year testing your breath for alcohol each time you start your car.

Gov. Janet Napolitano signed a bill into law Friday that will require all convicted drunken drivers to have ignition interlocks as early as this fall.

“People will look at this as a significant change and see it as a deterrent,” said Rep. David Schapira, D-Tempe.

But Sarah Longwell, a spokeswoman for the American Beverage Institute in Washington, suggested that the law could lead to interlocks on everyone’s car. She said they should be only for repeat and extreme offenders, who until now were the only people Arizona required to have the devices.

“It’s like punishing someone the same for going five miles over the speed limit as you would for going 40 miles over,” Longwell said.

New Mexico is the only other state that requires interlocks for all DUI offenders.