Starting in August, any driver convicted in New York of driving drunk will have to install a device that prevents the car from starting if he or she can't pass a breathalyzer test.
The new requirement was apparently a provision in Leandra’s Law, the legislation passed and signed into law last fall in less than 30 days following the death of a young girl who was a passenger in a car driven by a drunken driver.
Not only will the device be required in the primary car of the convicted drunken driver, but also any car that the driver might even occasionally drive, or have access to drive (work vehicles are exempted).
That means, husband gets convicted of DWI, both his wife's car and his teenage daughter still living at home will need to have the devices installed. The interlock-ignition device is designed to prevent a car from starting if the driver blows a .02 or higher. It will also randomly require a driver to blow in the device as the person is driving to help ensure a friend didn't blow in it to get the car started initially (example photo here).
"Since when do we start punishing innocent people?" said Assistant County Manager Frank V. Ciaccia during the Monday meeting of the Public Safety Committee. "These are people who weren’t convicted of anything. Now every morning they get in a vehicle they’ve got to blow into this thing to get the car to start?"
County officials are most concerned about the additional costs associated with the legislation, which could reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There are some 360 DWI convictions in Genesee County each year, according to County Manager Jay Gsell. Only about 40 percent of those drivers convicted are placed on probation. The rest are given a conditional release.
While those on probation will mean additional supervisory responsibility for the county's probation department, the other 60 percent on conditional release will now require additional supervision for which there is little provision in the county budget to provide.
Additionally, judges will be asked to make a determination -- based on state-provided guidelines -- on whether a convicted drunken driver can afford the device. If he can't, the county will pick up the tab.
Each device costs $100 to install and $100 per month to maintain.
In Genesee County, there could be as many as 450 to 500 of these devices installed, and nobody can estimate at this time how many will be paid for by taxpayers.
Funded or not, all will need to be monitored by county probation, Genesee Justice or some other county agency (the new law doesn't specify who will be responsible for monitoring compliance).
Gsell said Assembly and Senate representatives throughout the state are crying ignorance of these new provisions -- they just thought they were cracking down on drunken drivers with kids in the car.
"What apparently most of the legislators did not know is that this law went beyond just DWIs with a 15-year-old or younger in their car," Gsell said. "It applies to all DWIs. None of the legislators we've talked to understood when we've asked them to please look at this. They were clueless almost to a statewide unanimous number."
It's hard to believe, though, that legislators in Albany weren't fully aware of these provisions. The bill, Govenor's Program Bill 204 (pdf), is only 25 pages long with all of the new provisions conveniently underlined. Most of code section being amended deals with ignition locks and the new language clearly specifies both the "owner or operator" aspect and numerous times the additional phrase "conditional release" is added. The only way to miss its full scope, is to not read the bill at all.
Even if a legislator just read the cover memo (pdf), the first paragraph clearly states, "In addition, this bill requires all individuals convicted of a misdemeanor or felony DWI offense to install and maintain an interlock device."
Julie Smith, director of County Probation, said the devices are effective deterrents to drunken driving -- there are a few in use in the county now -- but it's unclear how much of an extra burden the revised law will put on her department. She also pointed out that all enforcement action the courts and probation take are based on statistical evidence about risk levels and the nature of the crimes. This new law doesn't make those distinctions.
“Here we have something that uses no evidence based practice," Smith said. "Whether it’s your first DWI or your fifth, you’re getting it.”
Gsell said that while there may be complaints about spouses being required to blow into a machine to start their cars, the loudest complaints will when somebody who was supposed to be prevented from driving, manages to drive drunk anyway.
"When someone doesn’t get the notification (the device manufacturer may not be able to notify the county of a device failure for five to 10 days), and two days after it failed to operate, disables the device and goes out, still gets drunk, still kills someone -- that’s when all hell is going to break loose," Gsell said.
The committee asked that a resolution asking for the law to be amended be presented at Wednesday's Ways and Means Committee meeting.
Such a resolution would mirror what is happening elsewhere in the state, where county legislatures, as they learn about the law, are taking steps to oppose some of its provisions. Examples can be found in Greene County and Essex County.
Legislator Jay Grasso, a former Sheriff's deputy, said he made more than 300 DWI arrests in his law enforcement career, but he doesn't see the need to put these devices in the cars of first-time, misdemeanor DWI offenders.
“I have no objection, in theory, to an interlock device for the multiple offender, for the felony offender," Grasso said. "To do this for that first-time offender – and I’m not excusing them, because I certainly locked them all up – who goes to the wine tasting, who goes to the carnival, and has a few too many and gets arrested, he's not gong to be your repeat offender. But that multiple guy, yeah, let’s put the interlock device on him."
Legislator Ray Cianfrini wanted to know if there was any way the county could just not enforce this "unfunded mandate," but, he was told, there's probably no way around it.
“This is a perfect example of a good law gone wild," Cianfrini said. "I’m so angry when I hear this now."
Pictured are Julie Smith and Frank Ciaccia
Howard? Did you forget to
Howard? Did you forget to mention that Assemblyman Steve Hawley was a co-sponsor of this bill?
Same as: S66008 Versions: A40008
BILL NO A40008
SAME AS Same as Uni. S66008
SPONSOR Rules (Weisenberg)
COSPNSR Silver, Kolb, Lentol, Gantt, Canestrari, Farrell, Koon, Mayersohn, Gottfried, Destito, Gunther, Colton, Abbate, Alessi, Alfano, Amedore, Arroyo, Barclay, Barra, Barron, Benedetto, Benjamin, Boyle, Brodsky, Brook-Krasny, Burling, Butler, Calhoun, Carrozza, Christensen, Clark, Conte, Cook, Crespo, Crouch, Cusick, Cymbrowitz, DelMonte, DenDekker, Dinowitz, Eddington, Englebright, Errigo, Espaillat, Fields, Finch, Fitzpatrick, Gabryszak, Galef, Gianaris, Giglio, Glick, Gordon, Hawley, Hayes, Hevesi, Hoyt, Jaffee, Kellner, Lancman, Latimer, Lavine, Lifton, Lupardo, Magnarelli, Maisel, McKevitt, Meng, Miller J, Miller M, Millman, Molinaro, Morelle, Nolan, Ortiz, Paulin, Peralta, Perry, Pheffer, Powell, Pretlow, Rabbitt, Raia, Ramos, Reilich, Rosenthal, Saladino, Sayward, Scarborough, Schimel, Schroeder, Scozzafava, Skartados, Spano, Stirpe, Sweeney, Tedisco, Thiele, Titone, Townsend, Weinstein, Zebrowski
A40008 Summary
Relates to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs with a child passenger; provides for installation of ignition interlock device as a term of probation in certain instances.
AN ACT to amend the vehicle and traffic law and the penal law, in relation to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs with a child as a passenger and to amend the executive law, in relation to installation of an ignition interlock device
A40008 Actions
A40008 - 3RD READING CAL.7 - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - 3 DAY MESSAGE - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - PASSED SENATE - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - REFERRED TO RULES - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - SUBSTITUTED FOR S66008 - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - delivered to governor - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - signed chap.496 - Nov 18, 2009
A40008 - delivered to senate - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - 3 day message - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - ordered to third reading rules cal.685 - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - passed assembly - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - referred to transportation - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - reported - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - reported referred to codes - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - reported referred to rules - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - reported referred to ways and means - Nov 17, 2009
A40008 - rules report cal.685 - Nov 17, 2009
Wow. 450 to 500 of these
Wow. 450 to 500 of these things will need to be installed in Genessee County? Someone's business is going to get some real stimiulus this year.
C.M.- Good call!! I cannot
C.M.- Good call!! I cannot believe that none of the legislators could have pass this without anybody NOT knowing what was in the bill (there are 102 names listed as cosponsors!!) This is just plain and simple ludicrous, an unbelievable waste of taxpayers money!
Mike- I agree with you--somebody will be getting a bail out from this!!!
Senator Ranzenhofer voted aye
Senator Ranzenhofer voted aye in the senate version.
http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/api/html/bill/S66008
Ayes (59): ADAMS, ADDABBO, ALESI, AUBERTINE, BONACIC, BRESLIN, DEFRANCISCO, DILAN, DUANE, ESPADA, FARLEY, FLANAGAN, FOLEY, FUSCHILLO, GRIFFO, HANNON, HASSELL-THOMPSON, HUNTLEY, JOHNSON C, JOHNSON O, KLEIN, KRUEGER, KRUGER, LANZA, LARKIN, LAVALLE, LEIBELL, LIBOUS, LITTLE, MARCELLINO, MAZIARZ, MCDONALD, MONSERRATE, MORAHAN, NOZZOLIO, ONORATO, OPPENHEIMER, PADAVAN, PARKER, PERKINS, RANZENHOFER, ROBACH, SALAND, SAMPSON, SAVINO, SCHNEIDERMAN, SERRANO, SEWARD, SKELOS, SMITH, SQUADRON, STACHOWSKI, STAVISKY, STEWART-COUSINS, THOMPSON, VALESKY, VOLKER, WINNER, YOUNG
ok Steve Hawley ? stand up
ok Steve Hawley ? stand up and tell us more about this, you going to find the money for this or are you going to foot the bill?
has anyone thought of the
has anyone thought of the fact that there is a real problem with drunk drivers here the sad part is most of them just get probation and they go on to get 4 or 5 DWI before anything is done I think they should get a year in Jail for the first time and then when they get out make them have the devices put on thier cars!
I don't believe, Deborah,
I don't believe, Deborah, that most people charged with DWI go on to receive 4 or 5. While this is a serious issue with even more serious implications, automatic jail time and lengthy and costly monitoring are not the answers.
Deborah, read Legislator
Deborah, read Legislator Grasso's remarks near the end of the post. He probably knows what he's talking about. The repeat offenders are the problem to be sure. Most people who get one DWI learn from their mistake to the tune of $ 4 - 7,000 and never do it again.
I don’t understand why the
I don’t understand why the county would have to pay for any part of this. If a convicted drunk is still to be given the privilege to drive then he/she needs to pay the costs for the install and maintenance. Why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill? Driving is a privilege and if restrictions are needed to control someone who is irresponsible, then that person should bear the costs.
Drunks should take the bus.
This story was already
This story was already getting long, so I didn't include this part, but Sheriff Gary Maha said only about 1/10 of the drivers on conditional release -- these are mostly your first-time, misdemeanor offenders -- ever violate the terms of their release.
What makes this even better
What makes this even better is a small air compresser that goes into the lighter plug or a few balloons. Could put them back on the road. Kind of sounds unsafe haveing to drive and fiddle around blowing into it so your car don't stop in the middle of the road, if they get rear ended I bet they could take the state to court.
If they were interested at all in keeping drunks off the road. They would install the breath testers where drinks are severed. Being we are required to know how much is in our blood before driving.
I personaly would like to see .02 accross the board as the limit. Theres no gess work there, drink don't drive.
That works if you are
That works if you are drinking in a bar. What of the alcohlic, who may not be drining in a bar, but pours beer or whiskey in a coffee mug to make sure that there is a drink at hand when driving?
Dave, Last time I checked,
Dave,
Last time I checked, Grasso worked at Senator Ranzenhofer's office. Here's how the political disconnect works:
Ranz and Hawley vote for the bill because they're afraid if they don't people will slam them for not being the law and order Republicans they tell us they are. Then, in a Herculaean attempt at logical disconnect, they send their local level Republican politicians out to complain about Albany's spending glut and unfunded mandates. Then, of course, we continue to elect them because they care sooooo much about the needs of our families no matter what side of their mouths they happen to be speaking out of.
Cute eh?
I don't see how they can make
I don't see how they can make individuals who have not been convicted of anything have to use this, ex. the wife or daughter's car, no way will the ACLU allow this. I also don't understand why the county would be responsible for paying for this - it seems that the person convicted would have to and if not - I guess they would be in violation of probabation and they would go to jail. I know that drunk driving is a huge issue in this area (and I don't think we do nearly enough) but this law seems like a knee jerk reaction to a horrible incident. I used to live on Long Island in Nassau county and if you got convicted of a DWI they took your car. Personally I think this probably works - you hit people hard where it matters (money) and you take away their ability to repeast the offense (at least for a while. Of course by taking away their car you probably also take away their ability to keep a job - which means we end up paying for them anyway - as we can see there are no easy solutions.
Chris, you have just summed
Chris, you have just summed up our political party system in a tight little package. These political types do things to look good instead of doing good. Our land is ruled by those who are the best liars and manipulators. These people band together in corrupt political organizations so, that their profits can be better managed.
You speak of Republicans like they are the sole problem, when they are only account for half of it. No one in Albany or Washington reads the bills they vote into law. These people do what they are told to do and they do so without question. Their political party masters pull the strings and we pay the costs of their corruption.
You got it Charlie! If they
You got it Charlie! If they do go against the grain for whatever reason they will have their support and re-election money cut off!
Yay to free speech and thinking!
Chris & Charlie, I couldn't
Chris & Charlie, I couldn't agree with your comments more. This is an election year and nobody running for re-election wants to be seen as not trying to get drunk drivers off the road. I'll also agree that they probably rarely read the bills they vote on, they just decide what side to be on. That doesn't make Grasso's and Sheriff Maha's remarks about first time offenders wrong.
Charlie, I used the
Charlie,
I used the Republicans as an example because they're in charge around here and, as far as I'm concerned, they have logical dissonance down to an exact science. If we lived in the Bronx I'm sure we could paint Democrats the same way. We need politicians with the intestinal fortitude to make decisions without considering the effect on their poll numbers.
This is a bipartisan screw up
This is a bipartisan screw up and nobody did their job.
The basic idea of the law was good and it seems clear now that no Democrat (the majority) or Republican bothered to double check the details. They all trusted the bills author, which I bet they don't do again.
Charlie was right on way should the County have to pay? Why should the taxpayer have to pay for your mistake. If you can afford to drive, you pay, or walk.
If my memory serves me, these
If my memory serves me, these types of devices have been used in the past by Genesee County probation. And the cost was paid by the individual, not the county.
I have no problem with the idea, but it irks me to no end that the same lawmakers who passed the bill are surprised by the provisions that lie within. Doesn't anybody read anymore? How can you vote on something if you don't know what you are voting about? Looks to me like another mandate with no money.
Hmmmmm, wonder what little provisions are hidden in Obamacare? Nancy said we'll know what's in it after it passes. I dare say a very few congress or senate members have read the entire bill.
John is on the right track
John is on the right track with this bill being a bi-partisan screw up. I even see that woman beater Monserrate on the list.
This bill also seems like it could be a decent idea if they put the costs of this back on those who made the bad decisions in the first place, the drunks.
In Steve’s defense, who in their right mind could oppose a bill named after a little girl who was killed by a drunk? I think the true test comes now that the problem has been identified. Let’s see who steps up to change the language in this bill. Mistakes happen.
What Charlie? Did you just
What Charlie? Did you just suggest that a politician will accept blame!? Alright calm down.
Phil, I didn’t just fall off
Phil, I didn’t just fall off the turnip truck. I expect them to name it, The Leandra’s Reform Act or bury it in a piece of corn subsidy legislation. Heck, if they are really good they will build a whole campaign around the change and send us a multicolor flyer (On the taxpayers dime) to promote their good deed.
I haven't read any of the
I haven't read any of the other comments, so I don't know if this has been addressed already--but the one thing that worries me is the concept of someone having to blow into the thing randomly while they are supposed to be keeping their eyes on the road. What does everyone else think about that?
Other than that, I have to say I think this is a good law -- at least in theory. I think Grasso offers some good suggestions.
Posted by Howard Owens on
Posted by Howard Owens on April 20, 2010 - 12:09am
Legislator Jay Grasso, a former Sheriff's deputy, said he made more than 300 DWI arrests in his law enforcement career, but he doesn't see the need to put these devices in the cars of first-time, misdemeanor DWI offenders.
300 DWI arrests. And that was in a pretty short time frame. They need to put him back out on patrol. I've heard the legends of a former patrolman out "looking for drunks". In Genesee County they don't need to have devices installed, they can just unleash a Legislator. He can stop the drunks and he can also stop the folks with the broken tail lights, too.