Now
Mostly Cloudy
59°
High
64°
Low
48°

Interlock devices for drunk drivers favored by lawmakers

Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY JoANNE YOUNG / Lincoln Journal Star

Wednesday, Mar 26, 2008 - 10:20:42 pm CDT



Getting repeat drunk drivers off the road is the aim of a bill that got first-round approval Wednesday night in the Nebraska Legislature.

The bill (LB736), introduced by Lincoln Sen. Tony Fulton, would require that first-offense drunk drivers use an interlock ignition device in order to drive to work, school, alcohol treatment and interlock facilities.

It would also require a convicted offender to apply for and purchase a permit for the device. No permit would be allowed for a person who refused to take a chemical test.

Sen. Tom Carlson of Holdrege made the bill his priority.

In 2006, Fulton said, 86 people in Nebraska were killed because of drunk drivers, and one-third of people arrested last year for drunk driving were repeat offenders.

That shouldn’t happen, he said.

Revoking a driver’s license when someone is arrested for drunk driving is not a remedy for the problem, he said. But studies have shown that interlock devices could reduce the loss of life because they reduce the number of people who drive on suspended licenses, he said.

The device, which looks like a small Breathalyzer, requires the driver to blow into it before the car will start. If alcohol is detected, the car will not start.

With the amended bill, if a person arrested for drunk driving has under .15 percent blood alcohol content, the court may order an impoundment with no driving for six months, or order a six-month revocation with eligibility for an interlock permit after 30 days of no driving. If his or her blood alcohol content is .15 percent or higher, the person’s license is revoked for one year, but he or she can apply for a permit for an interlock device after 60 days of no driving.

The fee for an interlock permit would be $45, plus the cost of the device. The bill provides for assistance for indigent offenders.

The permit could not be used on commercial vehicles.

During debate on the bill Wednesday, Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center, said he was concerned that a 2006 law that allows a judge to order an interlock device for repeat offenders is seldom used.

“I am very much concerned about drunk drivers on the road,” Stuthman said. “The situation I’m concerned with is that we already have something in place. … We debated this long and hard two years ago.”

Omaha Sen. Brad Ashford, chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, said the bill is a constructive way to handle repeat drunk driving.

Reach JoAnne Young at 473-7228 or jyoung@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Politics > Back to Top of Story

All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Pass This Bill wrote on March 27, 2008 8:12 am:
" It's the right thing to do. Seriously people. "

Stacy wrote on March 27, 2008 8:15 am:
" I think this is a Great Idea!!! "

two idiots wrote on March 27, 2008 8:41 am:
" I'm looking for real informstion. The reporter here doesn't describe how (if at all) the proposed law affects the Administrative License Revocation process as applied by the DMV. This is a crucial issue because most 1st offense DUIs lose their license through the DMV's processes and not through the judicial impoundment process. Further, most 1st offense DUI offenders are sentenced to probation, which doesn't carry the 6 month impoundment, it only carries 60 days, which is subsumed by the DMV's revocation.
Fulton probably doesn't know the dynamic and the reporter didn't have the sense to ask. "

Nina wrote on March 27, 2008 8:52 am:
" It's a step in the right direction, for sure. I speak as one who had a child injured by a drunk driver, and there are too many of us with like experiences out there. Drunk drivers cause harm, even death, and so should be prohibited however we can. It's a safety priority. "

roger wrote on March 27, 2008 9:02 am:
" great, we can fund another thing for indigent people, by paying for the use of a interlock device. Its simple you do the crime, you do the time. In these tough times counties are having a hard enough time paying for court appointed attornies, (which are appointed to many times) and now you want the taxpayers to foot the bill for devices for drunk drivers. "

David wrote on March 27, 2008 10:57 am:
" Roger,
Believe me, the State will never pay of these devices. If you can't pay the fees, you don't get the device. "

Yup wrote on March 27, 2008 1:40 pm:
" What's to prevent the offender from simply borrowing the friends car? They'll find ways to get around this. "