reducing dwi with interlocks the new mexico experience

Roth 8/26/07 2007 Interlock Symposium 1

Reducing DWI With InterlocksThe New Mexico Experience

8th Ignition Interlock SymposiumAugust 26-7, 2007

Richard Roth, Robert Voas, Paul Marques

Supported by PIRE, NHTSA, and NM TSB


New York Times Editorial November 25, 2006

.. “The initial (MADD) goal, which is backed by associations of State highway officials and car manufacturers, is to have all states do what New Mexico has already done: require that all convicted drunken drivers, even first-time offenders, have devices installed in their cars that measure alcohol in the breath and immobilized the car if levels exceed set limits.”


An Ignition Interlock is anElectronic Probation Officer

• Dedicated Probation Officer in Front Seat• On duty 24 hours per day• Tests and Records daily BAC’s • Allows only Alcohol-Free Persons to Drive.• Reports All Violations to the Court• Costs Offender only $2.30 per day.

(1 less drink per day)


New Mexico Interlock Laws• 1999 Optional for 2nd and 3rd DWI. • 2002 Mandatory for all Aggravated and

Subsequent DWIs. Indigent Fund• 2003 Ignition Interlock License Act:

….an alternative to revocation. • 2005 Mandatory Interlocks for all DWIs:

1yr for 1st ; 2 for 2nd ; 3 for 3rd ; Lifetime for 4+


NM Interlock RegulationsNM DOT

http://ipl.unm.edu/traf/rules/interlockrules.doc

• Objective: To implement Interlock Laws• Licensing of manufacturers, service

centers, operators, and installers• Device standards & recording requirements • Installation, servicing, and removal. • Record keeping and reporting requirements

http://ipl.unm.edu/traf/rules/interlockrules.doc


Interlocks are Effective, Cost-Effective and Fair

• Interlocks reduce DWI re-arrests by 40-90%• They reduce the economic impact of drunk

driving by $3 to $7 for every $1 of cost.• Interlocks are perceived as a fair sanction by

85% of over 5000 offenders surveyed.

• ..But they only work if… • you get them installed.


Interlock Installations per Year in New MexicoData from Interlock Providers. Plot by Dr. Richard Roth

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006


Currently-Installed Interlocks per Million Residents by State2006 Data from 8 of 9 US Interlock Distributors; Plot by Dick Roth June 15, 2006

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500N

ew M

exic

o

Iow

a

Was

hing

ton

Mar

ylan

d

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Ariz

ona

Col

orad

o

Okl

ahom

a

Virg

inia

Uta

h

Ark

ansa

s

Mic

higa

n

Wes

t Virg

inia

Texa

s

Ore

gon

Mis

sour

i

Idah

o

Flor

ida

Sout

h D

akot

a

Del

awar

e

Illin

ois

Ohi

o

Penn

sylv

ania

Geo

rgia

Loui

sian

a

How does New Mexico compare with other states in interlock utilization?


Do Interlocked Offenders have a Lower Re-Arrest Rate?

• Court Mandated Installations of Interlocks. --Selected as installations within 90 days after conviction. N = 3089

• Voluntary Installations. --Selected as all others. N = 4961


Interlock Clients in New Mexico by Year and Reason For Installation

759 1026 1304

1117

1682

2162

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

2003 2004 2005

Year of Interlock Installation

Voluntary: Installedbefore conviction ormore than 90 days afterconvictionMandated (Installedwithin 90 days after aConviction)

Court Mandated vs Voluntary Installations


Recidivism of Mandated Interlocked Offenders vs Comparison Group by Conviction Number

6.4%

8.1% 8.3%

2.6%3.2% 3.6%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

C# = 1 C# = 2 C# = 3

DWI Convictions Prior to Installation

Rear

rest

ed w

ithin

1 y

ear

Comparison Groups(RED) Interlocked Groups(GREEN)

Effectiveness with Court Mandated Offenders


Recidivism of Non-mandated Interlocked offenders vs Comparison Group by Arrest Number

9.1%

12.0%

1.5% 1.6%

3.6%

6.8%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

A# = 1 A# = 2 A# = 3+

DWI Arrests prior to Installation

% R

e-ar

rest

ed w

ithin

1 y

ear

RED=Comparison Groups GREEN=Interlocked Groups

Effectiveness with Volunteers ie. Not court-mandated


Recidivism of NM Drivers after a DWI ConvictionData from CTS407; Plot by Dick Roth 8/17/07

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%19

8519

8619

8719

8819

8919

9019

9119

9219

9319

9419

9519

9619

9719

9819

9920

0020

0120

0220

0320

0420

0520

06

Year of Conviction

Frac

tion

Re-A

rres

ted

With

in 1

Yea

r

Cravens Crash Ignition Interlock

Law

Down 30%

Down 36%


Recidivism of 58779 NM DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

One

Min

us C

um S

urvi

val

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.0% Before

6.7% After

A 16% Reduction

Statewide recidivism decreased.


Recidivism of 4855 SF County DWI Offenders

Before and After First Mandatory Interlock Law

Time after Conviction (years)

2.01.51.0.50.0

Fra

ctio

n R

earr

este

d fo

r D

WI

.16

.14

.12

.10

.08

.06

.04

.02

0.00

Year of Conv

2001-2

2003-5

8.7% Before

6.2% After

A 29% Reduction

Before

After


NM Alcohol-Involved Crash Rate

2.02

2.802.882.92

2.59

2.07

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Cra

shes

per

100

0 D

river

s

30% drop in 4 years826 Fewer A-I Crashes in 2006 than in 2002 before interlocks


Fewer Alcohol Involved Fatal Crashes and Fatalities

NM Alcohol-Involved Fatal Crashes 16% Decrease in 3 Years

167176184

198

0

50

100

150

200

2002 2003 2004 2005

NM Alcohol-Involved Fatalities

194219

0

50

100

150

200

250

2004 2005

11% Decrease in 1 year


NM DWI Fatalities (in Red), and Lives Saved (in Green),Data from NM TSB; Plot by Dick Roth

225214

219

194 191

6

31 34

11

170

180

190

200

210

220

230

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

82 Lives Saved in the 4 years since Interlocks became mandatory in 2003


Survey of Interlocked Offenders

Helped Reduce My Drinking

Helped Reduce My Drinking

SAAUDSD

Perc

ent

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Benefits Outweigh Costs

Benefits Outweigh Costs

SAAUDSD

Perc

ent

40

30

20

10

0

All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks

All Arrested for DWI Should Have Interlocks

SAAUDSD

Perc

ent

40

30

20

10

0

Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving

Effectively Reduce Drunk Driving

SAAUDSD

Perc

ent

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

77% 81%

69% 63%

N = 796


Interlocks Installed by Provider in NM

ADS2%

Dra46%

Gua10%

Lif22%

SS13%

CST6%

ACS1%

January to September 2006

Roth 8/26/07 2007 Interlock Symposium 210.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

McKinley

San Juan

Curry

Otero

Grant

Dona Ana

Roosevelt +3

San Miguel

Luna+1

Lincoln

Socorro +2

Chavez

Colfax+3

Lea

New Mexico

Cibola

Bernalillo

Torrance

Sandoval

Taos

Eddy

Valencia

Rio Arriba

Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Interlocks Installed Per Conviction in First 9 months of 2006

Caution: this figure includes installations by persons not convicted, and changes of provider.

Roth 8/26/07 2007 Interlock Symposium 220.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

McKinley

Curry

Otero

San Juan

Grant

Dona Ana

San Miguel

Colfax+3

Roosevelt +3

Lincoln

Socorro +2

Taos

New Mexico

Lea

Luna+1

Cibola

Bernalillo

Chavez

Sandoval

Valencia

Santa Fe

Los Alamos

Rio Arriba

Torrance

Eddy

Interlocks Installed per DWI Arrest by County in NM

Jan-Sept 2006

Caution: Includes

some changes

of Provider.

Room for Improvement


Surveys of 2440 DWI Offenders at 10 Albuquerque Victim Impact Panels. Responses to the questions:

1.Did the court mandate that you install an interlock? 2. Have you installed an interlock already?

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Feb-06

2006 2006 Jun-06

% Mandated % Installed before VIP


Proposals to Close NM Loopholes1. Add “or electronic monitoring” for No car.2. Vehicle Forfeiture for driving while revoked

without an interlock.3. Vehicle Immobilization or Interlock between

arrest and adjudication.4. Crime to contribute to circumvention.5. Apply interlock sanction to juvenile

offenders.6. Mandate a period of alcohol-free DRIVING

before getting unrestricted license.


Legislative Recommendations1. Immobilization or Interlock between DWI

arrest and adjudication. 2. Mandatory Interlock for at least one year

for all convicted offenders with electronic monitoring or urine testing as the only alternatives.

3. Compliance Based Removal. Requirement: No recorded BAC > .05 by any driver for a year.

4. Interlock License as an Alternative to Revocation.

5. An Indigent Fund with objective standards.6. Mandatory Period of Interlock before

Unrestricted License Reinstatement.

reducing dwi with interlocks the new mexico experience

Documents