1. Convicted misdemeanor DUI offenders (including those convicted of Refusal to Take a Chemical Test) are eligible to get an Ignition Interlock Limited License which will permit them to drive an ignition interlock equipped car during their period of revocation following a 30 day hard revocation period for first time offenders and a 90 day hard revocation period for subsequent offenses. Felony DUI offenders are not eligible for an Ignition Interlock Limited License (IILL).

Individuals applying for an IILL must be in compliance with the alcoholism screening, evaluation, referral, and program requirements of the Department of Health and Social Services under AS 28.35.030(h)22, (usually ASAP).

Proof of insurance is required as is a record of no prior convictions for tampering with an ignition interlock.

2. It is an offense to tamper with or circumvent an ignition interlock device. It is an offense to rent or loan a vehicle to someone  who is known to have an IILL.

3. A minimum period of ignition interlock use is required as part of sentencing for DUI and Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test convictions.  This period begins when the individual regains the privilege to drive and the length of time for required use is dependent upon number of prior offenses. First offense – 12 months, 2nd offense – 24 months; 3rd offense – 36 months; 4th and beyond – throughout period of probation.

4. Persons holding a Limited License issued prior to the effective date of this legislation may continue to use that license.

5. Local communities must include provisions for ignition interlocks that are consistent with this statute.

6. If a community wherein the offender resides does not have roads connected to the state highway system, the court shall waive the requirement of the use of an ignition interlock device when a person operates a motor vehicle in that community which must be included on the list published by the department.

When does this law take effect? – The effective date on this law is January 1, 2009.  Administrative regulations need to written before it can take effect. Check with DMV to see if it will be effective any earlier.

Are Ignition Interlocks easy to circumvent? Not anymore.  Most devices require a learned breathing and hum pattern in order to activate the device.  The most current devices actually take a picture of the person operating the device and stores it for download at the monthly servicing.  Also, the devices require random rolling re-tests which signal the driver to pull over within a few minutes and reactivate the device.  If the rolling re-test detects alcohol, the car lights begin to blink and the horn sounds.  The vehicle does not stop in the middle of traffic! 

I need more information.  What is this gadget all about anyway? This website gives a good explanation of the technology and its uses.  

Who pays for this? The offender.

How much does it cost? The cost varies according to the vendor, but can run roughly between $100-$125 for an install and $125 monthly for leasing and downloading of information.

Is the Ignition Interlock Limited License taken away if the device detects alcohol? No.  The device stops the offender from driving that car. It is doing its job when that offender cannot operate his/her vehicle.  It is not designed to cure alcohol abuse; it is designed to protect the public from an alcohol-impaired driver.

Hawaii saw its own ignition interlock bill signed June 13th.

Nebraska joins the national trend with a bill requiring use of the IID for first and second time DUI offenders.

Wisconsin legislator, Tony Staskunis, along with MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving), recently announced a piece of alcohol ignition interlock legislation aimed at addressing their grim statistic of being the worst state in the country for drunk driving fatalities.

New Brunswick, Canada, is joining other provinces in implementing an ignition interlock program designed to be a “part of our highway safety, and as you know safety on our highways is an important part of building and protecting a safe New Brunswick,” according to Public Safety Minister John Foran.

Here’s more news from New Jersey, California, and Wyoming.

“A couple of drafts at a ball game, a glass of wine at an anniversary dinner, a wedding toast or two: Moderate drinking — not enough to render you “impaired,” let alone drunk — may soon be all it takes for drivers in Alaska to be charged with drunken driving and saddled with an interlock in their car.”

It seems to me that her argument really is with the .08 BAC level, NOT with the ignition interlock requirement.  The proposed language of HB19 does not suggest that an individual is required to use an interlock after a wedding toast or two, but rather, after they have been convicted of driving under the influence — two very different things. If that toast renders an individual legally impaired, then, YES, they should be required to use an ignition interlock!  If, however, the American Beverage Institute has deemed that there is no impairment with a BAC of .08, then they should spend their lobbying dollars on that issue!

She continues to contend that,

“… there’s a big difference between a person driving after two drinks and a drunk who drives after 10. Proposed legislation would force Alaska judges to ignore that difference. They would have to punish drivers charged with driving just a sip over the limit with the same sentence given hard-core offenders: ignition interlocks.”

She seems to have missed the fact that time period for which a convicted DUI offender would be required to use an ignition interlock is determined by the number of previous offenses.  In other words, a first time offender would be required to use the device for 12 months, a second time offender, 24 months etc. Additionally, there already exists, in state law, a sanction for those convicted of a high BAC. [AS 28.35.030 (r) (1-2)]

If the American Beverage Institute is most concerned about more conservative drinking patterns of their customers and its financial impact due to increased sanctions for those convicted of DUI, might they not be better served to provide exit-door, personal breathalyzers at their establishments?  That way, folks can drink to the max without going over!

The caveat in this discussion?  Every hardcore drinker was once a first-time offender!

The bill will need to be brought up again, passed, then heard before the whole Senate — all within the next two weeks or so — to pass!  It’s a worthy bill.  Better, I believe, than the one passed just last week in Maine. I don’t mean diminish the value of their efforts; rather I’d like to point out the quality and the courage of the effort here in Alaska!

HB19 must be heard and passed from this committee as its last stop on its way to the full Senate. If passed there, it becomes law. Though one of many, many bills before the Alaska State legislature this session, this is not an inconsequential matter — this simple blogspot devoted to this singular issue has had over 700 hits since its inception.

A good ignition interlock program saves lives, makes highways safer and affords a means to greater productivity to offenders. Wins, all the way around. Here’s to a thorough review of the bill, wisdom in making amendments and, ultimately, its passage!