Ignition Interlock Report 2016

How Technology Has STOPPED 1.77 MILLION Drunk Drivers

A STATE BY STATE GUIDE TO CREATING A FUTURE OF NO MORE VICTIMS ® Released February 10, 2016

NOAH LEOTTA 6/7/91 - 12/10/15

THE DEATH OF MARYLAND POLICE OFFICER NOAH LEOTTA BY A SUSPECTED REPEAT DRUNK DRIVER IN DECEMBER 2015 HAS RENEWED EFFORTS TO PASS A LAW THAT COULD HELP SAVE COUNTLESS LIVES. BILLS REQUIRING ALL CONVICTED DRUNK DRIVERS TO INSTALL IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES HAVE STALLED IN THE MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOR YEARS, BUT “NOAH’S LAW” COULD BE THE TIPPING POINT. THIS REPORT IS DEDICATED TO NOAH AND ALL WHO HAVE BEEN VICTIMS OF DRUNK DRIVING.

IT’S TIME TO TAKE ACTION NOW.

It’s time to take action now. MADD urges every state to require ignition interlocks for anyone who seeks driving privileges after a drunk driving offense. For the 25 states that have these laws in place, there is always room to evaluate and improve laws to make sure every drunk driver installs an ignition interlock during a license suspension period. All-offender ignition interlock laws are endorsed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Transportation Safety Board, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AAA and every other major traffic safety organization. Even segments of the alcohol industry have endorsed requiring ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers. This report will show how ignition interlocks are saving lives and will provide MADD’s recommendations for every state to pass effective, lifesaving ignition interlock laws.

THIS HAND-HELD DEVICE WILL STOP A DRIVER FROM STARTING HIS OR HER VEHICLE IF ALCOHOL IS DETECTED. MADD IS CONFIDENT THAT AN IGNITION INTERLOCK IS THE SAFEST, MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO STOP A DRUNK DRIVERFROMBECOMINGAREPEATOFFENDER. Drunk driving continues to be the leading killer on our nation’s roadways, despite a dramatic shift in social attitudes and tougher laws enacted since the founding of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) more than 35 years ago. Today, the technology exists that can stop this completely preventable, violent crime. Ignition interlocks — cell phone-size devices installed in the vehicles of drunk driving offenders — take the decision to drive drunk out of the hands of the driver. If the device detects alcohol on the driver’s breath, the car will not start. Across the nation, ignition interlocks have prevented 1.77 million attempts to drive drunk . This data, provided by 11 major ignition interlock companies, illustrates the dangerous rate at which drunk driving offenders continue to make the reckless decision to drink and drive, even after they have been caught. These alarming numbers reinforce MADD’s belief that every drunk driving offender should use an ignition interlock before regaining unrestricted driving privileges. No other option available today — be it DUI court, treatment programs, license suspension, monitoring devices or twice-daily alcohol testing or alcohol ankle bracelets — can physically block an offender from operating his or her vehicle after consuming alcohol. That’s why MADD believes every option for treatment and rehabilitation should include an ignition interlock requirement to allow the offender to safely travel without putting others or themselves at risk.

GET THE FACTS

• About one-third of all drivers arrested or convicted of drunk driving are repeat offenders • On average, a drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before a first arrest • 50-75 percent of convicted drunk drivers will continue to drive even on a suspended license • Each day, people drive drunk almost 300,000 times , but fewer than 4,000 are arrested

WA

ME

MT

ND

MN

VT

OR

.16 BAC

NH

WI

ID

NY

MA CT

SD

MI

WY

.17 BAC

IA

PA

NJ

NE

.10 BAC

NV

OH

IN

DC

DE

IL

UT

MD

CA

CO

VA WV

KS

MO

KY

NC

TN

OK

AZ

AR

SC

NM

MS AL GA

LA

TX

FL

AK

HI

Revised Aug. 15, 2017

IGNITION INTERLOCKS FOR ALL OFFENDERS

MADD launched its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving® in 2006 to push the nation toward a day when there will be No More Victims ® of this violent crime. The Campaign’s three-pronged approach emphasizes high-visibility law enforcement, development of advanced vehicle technology to passively detect if a driver is drunk, and passing laws in every state to require all drunk driving offenders to install ignition interlocks. Combined with enforcement efforts, ignition interlocks are the best-proven countermeasure available to stop drunk driving. Today, 25 states require ignition interlocks for all offenders, and every state in the nation has an ignition interlock law on the books. In addition to the 25 states with all-offender interlock laws, 14 other states require ignition interlocks for first-time offenders with a BAC of .15 or greater. Only a handful of states reserve interlocks only for repeat offenders: Pennsylvania, Georgia and Idaho. Other states require interlocks for repeat offenders but allow judges the option to order the devices for first-time offenders too: Montana, Indiana and Ohio. However, interlocks are rarely, if ever, used for first-time offenders in these states.

driving fatalities. For example, drunk driving fatalities have decreased by 50 percent in Arizona since its law passed in 2007. Drunk driving fatalities in West Virginia have dropped 40 percent since 2008, and other states, such as Oregon, Washington and Hawaii have experienced reductions of 25 to 33 percent. Ignition interlocks not only protect the public and would-be drivers from the immediate risk of drunk driving, they also help rehabilitate the offender as he or she learns sober driving. The devices complement other rehabilitative programs by ensuring drivers remain sober when driving to and from treatment and while carrying out their daily responsibilities for family, work and/or school. This cannot be accomplished by simply revoking driving privileges. The public supports ignition interlocks for all arrested drunk drivers. Three surveys indicate strong public support of ignition interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers: • 88 percent (Center for Excellence in Rural Safety) • 84 percent (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) • 76 percent (American Automobile Association) • 69 percent (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

States that require ignition interlocks for all offenders have experienced significant reductions in drunk

IGNITION INTERLOCKS STOP DRUNK DRIVING Type of first-time offender ignition interlock device (IID) law Effective date of current IID law .08 BAC starts stopped via interlock

Drinking and driving occurrences stopped by an interlock

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado

All All All All All All All

7/1/14 1/1/09 9/1/07 4/1/09 7/1/10 1/1/09 1/1/12 1/1/15 4/1/13 10/1/08 5/1/99

719

3,797

9,617

117,430 563,515 306,066 1,024,279

59,782 40,521 124,455 92,503

4-county pilot

816,497 157,713

Connecticut

21,518

Delaware

721

4,710

District of Columbia

Optional .15 BAC

25

165

Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana

49,744 15,250 6,445

662,208 108,860 62,336 31,028 707,485

No All No All

1/1/11

10/1/00

4,638

1/1/09 1/1/15 7/1/95

96,456

Discretionary

1,290

7,939

Iowa

.10 BAC

127,633 58,497

595,473 410,491

Kansas

All

7/1/11

Kentucky Louisiana

.15 BAC

6/25/15 7/1/07 12/1/13 10/1/11 1/1/06 10/1/10 10/1/14 3/1/14 5/1/09 1/1/09 7/1/05 7/1/07 1/1/10 6/1/05 8/1/10 12/1/07 9/1/08 11/1/11 1/1/08 10/1/03 7/1/11 10/1/14 7/1/11 7/1/13 9/1/15 7/1/09 7/1/11 7/1/12 1/1/09 6/1/08 7/1/10 7/1/09 1/1/15

371

2,029

All All

60,970

379,814 36,901 140,305 243,665 451,594 325,875 148,395 30,060 181,913 37,476 186,869 461,774 433,437 129,704 108,103 239,430 240,871 462,998 18,289 55,661 0

Maine

5,185

Maryland

.15 BAC

18,491 37,983 86,393 58,350 2,835 28,174 4,512 22,178 6,099 8,850 39,676 62,231 84,233 14,007 16,641 27,785 38,522 78,210 26,613 18,594 8,066 6,270 10,067 103,913 15,046 156,860 0 1,296 1,015 1,487

Massachusetts

No

Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

.17 BAC .16 BAC

All All

Discretionary

All

Nevada

.18 BAC

New Hampshire

All

New Jersey New Mexico

.15 BAC

All All

New York

North Carolina North Dakota

.15 BAC

Discretionary Discretionary

Ohio

Oklahoma

.15 BAC

Oregon

All No

Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota

.15 BAC .15 BAC

7,787 8,345 8,605

.17 Optional

Tennessee

All All All All All All

160,771 120,567

Texas Utah

57,013 32,945 102,577 795,695 157,843 1,272,442

Vermont Virginia

Optional

Washington West Virginia

Wisconsin Wyoming

.15 BAC .15 BAC

15,772

97,993

= 12,717,738

= 1,776,509

CURRENT IGNITION INTERLOCK LAWS HAVE STOPPED MORE THAN 1.77 MILLION ATTEMPTS TO DRIVE DRUNK (.08 BAC OR ABOVE).

Date range for BAC starts: Law effective date through December 1, 2015.

Source: ADS, Blow and Drive, Intoxalock, LMG, Smart Start, Sensolock, Budget IID, ACS, Draeger

Fatality Reductions Since Enacting Interlock Law

500

400

300

200

100

0

Arizona (‘07) Arkansas (‘09)

Kansas (‘11) Louisiana (‘07)

New Mexico (‘05)

Oregon (‘08) Tennessee (‘13)

Virginia (‘12) West Va. (‘08)

Washington (‘09)

Year Prior to Interlock Law 2014

Aspart ofMADD’s Campaign toEliminateDrunkDriving , launched in 2006, MADD calls for all arrested drunk drivers with an illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or greater to use an ignition interlock during a court-ordered or DMV-administrated license suspension period. Twenty-five states have laws like this in place.

All-offender interlock laws save lives. Due in part to all-offender interlock laws, drunk driving deaths have declined dramatically and at a better pace compared to the national average decline.

ARIZONA: A CASE STUDY

States with all-offender ignition interlock laws have experienced substantial annual decreases in drunk driving fatalities. For example, the number of drunk driving fatalities in Arizona have dropped by 50 percent since passing an all-offender ignition interlock law in 2007, according to data from National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 2014 Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS). In 2015, based on the FARS data, the decrease in Arizona was 50 percent, illustrating the continued progress of one of the oldest all-offender ignition interlock laws in the U.S. These decreases are unheard of in traffic safety, and similar results in states that don’t have all-offender ignition interlock laws could save thousands of lives. Arizona is an example of a state that has enacted a strong all-offender law with a compliance-based removal component. Interlocks are also required for refusing an alcohol test.

When Arizona enacted its all-offender ignition interlock law in 2007, 399 people had died as a result of drunk driving the previous year. Seven years later, drunk driving fatalities have been cut in half to 199 in 2014. In Arizona, offenders who are ordered to use an ignition interlock must show proof that they have complied with the order before they can receive unrestricted driving privileges. In other states, offenders can wait until the order expires and obtain driving privileges without ever using an ignition interlock. Because of Arizona’s strong law, the state has had some of the highest interlock installation rates in the country. This has undoubtedly contributed to Arizona’s success in reducing drunk driving fatalities by 50 percent in seven years – from 2007 to 2014.

MADD’S MODEL ALL-OFFENDER IGNITION INTERLOCK LAW

In this report, MADD looks at five key aspects to a first- time offender ignition interlock law and three other elements critical to implementation. MADD’s model law is largely based on a CDC report, “Increasing Alcohol Ignition Interlock Use: Successful Practices for

States,” released in May 2015.

Implementing these eight components in a first-time offender ignition interlock law will boost interlock installations, reduce repeat offenses and save lives.

5 KEY COMPONENTS TO A FIRST-TIME OFFENDER LAW Circumvention Penalties Attempts to circumvent an interlock device should result in fines, jail time or, at the very least, extra time on an ignition interlock.

Interlock Available Upon Arrest An ignition interlock should be available upon arrest for any drunk driver seeking driving privileges during a license suspension. The sooner an interlock is installed, the lower the risk the offender will drive illegally and unmonitored on a suspended license. Compliance-Based Removal Every time an interlock user attempts to start or use an interlock, that data is recorded. This information can be used to determine whether an offender will continue to drive sober after the device is removed. Twenty-five states have a compliance-based removal component that includes extending time on an interlock for attempts to drink and drive.

Monitoring Interlock Users Every 30 days or sooner, the information from the interlock is downloaded by a service center. This information is typically sent to a monitoring agency (such as a court or driver’s license agency) every reporting period and/or at the end of the interlock restriction period. States should use this information to confirm compliance with an interlock order. Administrative Component It is important to have a strong administrative component to an interlock law to ensure that arrested drunk drivers can only be fully relicensed if they demonstrate successful use of an Indigent Fund States must use an objective standard when determining eligibility for help covering the average cost of an interlock device at $2.50 per day. Thirty states have a system that provides an interlock at a reduced cost, some of which are through agreements with interlock companies or fees paid by other interlock users. Interlocks for First-Time Refusals Nationally, one in five drivers arrested for suspicion of drunk driving refuse a chemical test. In some states, like Florida, the refusal rate is over 40 percent. Twenty-six states require an interlock for refusals.

OTHER KEY COMPONENTS TO A FIRST-TIME OFFENDER LAW

interlock during a license suspension — even if a judge fails to order the device.

Educate Stakeholders and Public States should have dedicated working groups of government and community stakeholders to make sure the interlock law is being implemented and suggest changes as needed to improve the law. Additionally, states could better publicize interlock laws during the twice-yearly, federally funded Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over drunk driving crackdowns.

Circumvention Penalties

Compliance based removal

Interlocks for first-time refusals

Interlock Avail- able upon arrest

Indigent Fund

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √

√ √ √ √ √

√ √

√ √ √

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana

√ √

√ √

Iowa

√ √ √ √

Kansas

√ √

Kentucky Louisiana

Maine

√ √

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

√ √

√ √ √

√ √

Nevada New Hampshire

New Jersey New Mexico

√ √ √

√ √

New York

North Carolina North Dakota Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee

√ √

Texas Utah

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

√ √

Vermont Virginia

Washington West Virginia

√ √ √ √

√ √

Wisconsin Wyoming

MADD BELIEVES ALL ARRESTED DRUNK DRIVERS SHOULD USE AN IGNITION INTERLOCK INSTEAD OF LOSING THEIR LICENSE.

LICENSE SUSPENSION

Prior to the advancement of ignition interlock technology, license revocations were the favored response to a drunk driving offense. Today, however, studies show that 50 to 75 percent of drunk driving offenders continue to drive even after losing their license. The safest way to ensure that these drivers are sober when they get behind the wheel is to monitor their driving behavior — and stop them if they attempt to start a vehicle after drinking.

Unfortunately, people continue to make the dangerous — and often tragic — decision to drink and drive. Short of incarceration, which costs taxpayers more than $100 per day, the only physical barrier to prevent an offender from driving drunk again is an ignition interlock. Any other program aimed at treating, monitoring and rehabilitating drunk driving offenders should include an ignition interlock component to ensure public safety while offenders address changing their drunk driving behavior.

ALL-OFFENDER LAWS TARGET DRUNK DRIVERS, NOT SOCIAL DRINKERS.

FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS ARE SERIOUS OFFENDERS. RESEARCH INDICATES FIRST-TIME OFFENDERS HAVE DRIVEN DRUNK AT LEAST 80 TIMES BEFORE THE FIRST ARREST. (CDC)

PREVENTING REPEAT OFFENSES

The overwhelming majority of studies on ignition interlocks relate to recidivism. Because ignition interlocks help reform behavior, the preventive effects continue even after the device is removed. Some key findings: • Fifteen peer-reviewed studies compiled by the CDC show a dramatic reduction — 67 percent — in recidivism comparing offenders with ignition interlocks to offenders whose licenses were suspended. Even after the interlock is removed, offenders who used them are 39 percent less likely to reoffend (Marques 2010). • A study of New Mexico’s ignition interlock device program found that recidivism rates were reduced by 75 percent for offenders in the program compared to non-participating offenders. The study found that alcohol-involved crashes declined 31 percent between 2002 and 2007. (Roth) • According toaWashingtonState study, recidivism among “simple” first offenders dropped by 12 percent two years after they removed the device. Simple offenders were those with a .08 to .14 BAC. The authors noted that only one-third of the

simple offenders installed an interlock. Had all of these offenders installed an interlock, recidivism could have been reduced by 50 percent, the study found. In addition, the authors wrote, late- night vehicle crashes were reduced by 8 percent. The study also recommends that jurisdictions seek to increase interlock installment rates and reconsider plea agreements that reduce drunk driving charges without requiring an ignition interlock. (McCartt, Leaf Farmer & Eichelberger, 2013) • A NHTSA study compared recidivism of multiple offenders with and without interlocks from 1999-2002. The study compared multiple offenders who were ordered by the courts to install interlocks to multiple offenders who were similarly prohibited from driving but not required to install interlocks. Multiple offender rearrest rates were 66 percent lower than the rearrest rates of those without interlock devices. During the full study period, including both the time on interlock and after interlock, the rearrest rate for those who installed the interlock was 22 percent lower than the rearrest rate for those without the interlock.

Ignition Interlock vs. License Suspension After DUI IGNITION INTERLOCK VS. LICENSE SUSPENSION FTER DUI

Ignition interlock installed at a service center for a one-time estimated cost of $70-$150.

License suspension with or without time/route restricted privileges (no ignition interlock).

Car will not start. Person is given second chance to blow into the device. IF ALCOHOL IS DETECTED

There is nothing stopping a drunk driver from driving on suspended or restricted license, unless an interlock is installed.

Person blows into an interlock device before starting vehicle.

If interlock detects no alcohol, car starts.

If interlock detects no alcohol , car starts.

If person blows positive too many times , car will enter lockout mode.

50% - 75% of convicted drunk

Rolling Retest Typically within 7-15 minutes, person is prompted to blow again into the device. Rolling retest is less frequent the longer car is in use.

Person is given another opportunity to take test, typically within 5 minutes. Car will not shut oƒ. IF ALCOHOL IS DETECTED ON ROLLING RETEST

drivers continue to drive on suspended license, which is one reason one-third of first oƒenders repeat the oƒense.

If no alcohol detected on rolling retest, car remains in normal operation.

If person misses rolling retest too many times , car will be in lockout. Car will not shut oƒ but horn may beep and lights flash.

Drunk drivers caught driving on suspended license: California: 43,000 in 2009 Florida: 17,000 in 2012 Wisconsin: 2,000 in 2014

If no alcohol detected on rolling retest. Person gets to destination safe and sober.

Person applies to court or driver’s license agency for unrestricted driving privileges after license suspension or revocation period.

• Interlock Service Center: Person must get interlock serviced every 30 days. • Lockout Mode: If person blows positive for alcohol too many times or misses a rolling test, device may need to be taken to get serviced sooner than 30 days. • Extra time on interlock possible. The interlock service center may report any violations, too many positive blows or missed rolling retests to a monitoring agency which may result in extra time on interlock if the state has a Compliance Based Removal aspect to the interlock law. Many states require oƒenders to show proof of installation and/or compliance with the interlock order to the court/driver’s license agency in order to have device removed. People who use an interlock are less likely to reo‡end. Compared to license suspension alone, interlocks reduce repeat o‡enses by 67% while the device is installed and 39% after the device is removed. Compliance Based Removal could help decrease repeat o‡enses even more. MADD supports ignition interlocks for ALL arrested drunk drivers. Interlocks accomplish what license suspension and other monitoring technologies do not — separate drinking from driving.

AVAILABILITY OF INTERLOCKS

Offenders pay for installation and maintenance of the devices, which costs an average of $2.50 per day — less than buying a beer at most establishments. Some states also collect a fee for an interlock-restricted license, which is designed to offset administrative costs of administering the program.

Federal funds also are available as incentive grants to states which pass all-offender ignition interlock laws.

Availability of Interlock Installation Centers AVAILABILITY OF INTERLOCK INSTALLATION CENTERS More than 4,900 Centers Nationwide

WA

ME

MT

ND

MN

VT

OR

NH

WI

ID

NY

MA CT

SD

MI

WY

RI

IA

PA

NJ

NE

NV

OH

IN

DC

DE

IL

UT

MD

VA WV

CA

CO

KS

MO

KY

NC

MAP LEGEND

TN

OK

AZ

AR

SC

NM

200+

MS AL GA

LA

101-199

TX

FL

26-100

AK

10-25

HI

0-10

Revised September 2

MAP LEGEND

200+

101-199

26-100

10-25

0-10

Revised September 2015

MADD’S CALL TO ACTION

INTERLOCK INCENTIVE GRANT BREAKDOWN

FY 16 PROJECTED FEDERAL INTERLOCK INCENTIVE GRANT DOLLARS*

STATE/JURISDICTION

As part of MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving , our goal is for every state to enact laws that require ignition interlocks for every drunk driving offender. Twenty-five states have these laws. MADD challenges the other 25 states to take action now. Even in states with all-offender laws, improvements can be made to get the highest rate of ignition interlock use. All states, for example, can do better to publicize ignition interlock laws and, where applicable, require interlock use in plea agreements. MADD calls on states to continue working on implementing all-offender interlock laws by following the best practices described in this report, such as making interlocks available upon arrest, providing for compliance-based removal of an interlock order, and ensuring every drunk driver installs an interlock. States must also ensure that judges are ordering these devices and driver license agencies are only restoring legal driving privileges once offenders have proven compliance with an interlock order. Every state should form working groups to improve implementation the law. They should also advertise existing interlock laws, especially during the twice-a-year, federally funded Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over drunk driving crackdown. Implementing these recommendations will help achieve the ultimate goal – No More Victims ® .

Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware D.C. Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indian Nations Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Minnesota Mississippi

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

283,993.10 129,622.69 43,265.25 307,408.25 211,999.73 1,582,365.95 279,874.25 156,447.14 129,795.75 129,795.75 832,579.16 493,050.79 43,265.25 129,795.75 129,795.75 630,720.81 346,122.00 343,612.62 231,676.76 251,146.12 244,483.27 233,390.06 129,795.75 250,519.64 283,716.20 496,944.66 341,622.41 188,584.57 360,416.84 129,795.75 164,641.75 141,113.94 129,795.75 371,233.15 147,274.91 847,012.45 467,506.99 129,795.75 43,265.25 560,458.05 256,580.24 204,835.00 600,862.60 158,084.30 129,795.75 241,887.36 129,795.75 336,626.14 1,267,098.99 150,909.19 129,795.75 43,265.25 377,446.04 338,974.58 129,795.75 331,792.55 129,795.75 17,305,041.04

New Jersey New Mexico New York

North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island

South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia

Wisconsin Wyoming

TOTAL

*Out of $17,306,100 annual appropriation. Source: ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/programs/402.html

MADD’S RECOMMENDATION FOR EACH STATE

Call to Action IID after arrest

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado

Compliance-based removal, IID after arrest, Indigent fund

IID after arrest, Indigent fund

Compliance-based removal, IID after arrest, IID Refusal, Indigent fund

Enact statewide all-offender IID law

IID after arrest

IID after arrest, Indigent fund

Connecticut

IID after arrest

Delaware

Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Compliance-based removal Enact all-offender IID law

District of Columbia

Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana

IID after arrest

Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law

Iowa

Compliance-based removal, IID after arrest

Kansas

Enact all-offender IID law

Kentucky Louisiana

Compliance-based removal, IID after arrest, Indigent fund Compliance-based removal, IID after arrest, IID refusal

Maine

Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Compliance-based removal

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska

IID after arrest, IID refusal, Indigent fund

Enact all-offender IID law

Publicize IID law, require interlocks in plea agreements

Enact all-offender IID law

Nevada

Compliance-based removal, IID refusal, IID arrest,Indigent fund

New Hampshire

Enact all-offender IID law IID after arrest, IID refusal

New Jersey New Mexico

IID refusal, Publicize law, require interlocks in plea agreements

New York

Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law

North Carolina North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Compliance-based removal, IID refusal, IID arrest

Oregon

Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota

Compliance-based removal, IID after arrest

Tennessee

IID circumvention penalties, Compliance based removal

Texas Utah

IID after arrest

Enact all-offender IID law IID after arrest, IID Refusal

Vermont Virginia

Publicize IID law, require interlocks in plea agreements Publicize IID law, require interlocks in plea agreements

Washington West Virginia

Enact all-offender IID law Enact all-offender IID law

Wisconsin Wyoming

10 th Anniversary 2006-201 6

MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING 877.ASK.MADD 877.MADD.HELP 24-Hour Victim Help Line madd.org/campaign

© 2016 Mothers Against Drunk Driving. All rights reserved. MADD does not receive monetary compensation or funding from any ignition interlock companies.

Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16

Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker