Wednesday, July 1, 2009
An ignition interlock device made by LifeSafer is used for breath alcohol testing in vehicles for driving under the influence offenders.
A new state law going into effect today is expected to have a large impact on driver safety in Missouri.
The law will require future and past offenders with more than one alcohol-related offense in Missouri to have an ignition interlock system installed in their cars. The Missouri Department of Revenue expects it to affect about 70,000 people.
The device, large enough to hold in your hand, is connected to the vehicle's ignition, horn and lights. It requires drivers to breathe into the apparatus to start the vehicle and after a set amount of miles while driving, to keep the vehicle in motion. If alcohol is detected, the car will not start.
Bud Balky, director of court monitoring for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Missouri State Organization, said the new law is a step in the right direction.
"I think this is going to make a lot of difference in the state of Missouri," he said. "We've had a problem with chronic, repeat offenders for a number of years."
During the past 10 years, judges in Missouri have had the choice of whether to impose an ignition interlock as part of a convicted person's sentence. Under the new law, it would be a requirement for them to do so for certain repeat offenders.
"The ignition interlock usage rate by the judiciary has been somewhat limited," Mr. Balky said." Like, Joplin has better usage rates than some areas, Columbia is better than others."
Steve Marshall, owner of Private Probation Services in St. Joseph, said his company is expecting an increase in the amount of customers required to use the device.
"We've been increasing our stock," he said. "We knew the change was coming, and we've been basically getting ready."
Mr. Marshall said he understands customers coming in might be irritable, as they didn't expect to be penalized for their previous alcohol-related offenses.
"I think they'll be pretty upset because they didn't have to have it before," he said. "When they have to do something that puts them on the offensive, that doesn't make for a pleasant experience."
Drivers also will have to foot the bill for the devices. While the price varies from city to city, Mr. Marshall said that installation of it in St. Joseph will cost about $40, as well as a $75 monthly charge.
"We lease the equipment monthly, like you would lease a car," he said. "We agree to a payment plan depending on how long they're on it."
Monitoring such a large volume of repeat offenders is a huge task, Mr. Balky said, one that he does not envy.
"The first couple of months are going to be a real test," he said. "The amount of work, I know it's going to be hard. But I think they'll do a fine job."
While not dealing with quite the large amount of people as the Department of Revenue, Mr. Marshall expects lines of potentially irritated people.
"I just tell them: 'I'm providing a service; don't shoot the messenger. We'll get through this together,'" he said.
The Missouri Department of Revenue defines an "alcohol-related offense" as any license suspension or revocation under the state's alcohol laws, refusing to submit to an alcohol and drug test in certain situations or a conviction for any other offense related to driving while intoxicated. This definition also applies to Missouri drivers who have committed these offenses in other states.
Those unsure of their current status are encouraged to call the Missouri Department of Revenue at (573) 526-2407.
Andrew Gaug can be reached at andrewgaug@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
WhoisJohnGalt says...
It's a gimmick that doesn't mean anything. I see no real value other than to make a few bucks for the interlock company.
July 1, 2009 at 6:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannytuff says...
Totally ridiculous. Not going to work as intended. Unnecessary nuisance for most. Waste of time and unrealistic burden on families of the offeners required to "lease" it. They are always looking for a way to get more and more money from us. For one mistake in judgement or "stupid moment", the driver and their families will have to pay through the nose for who knows how long!!
Repeat offenders I can understand, but not everybody is a repeat offender.
However, I understand how people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers have a different opinion. I, thank goodness, have never had to go through that, and I am sincerely sorry for all of those who have.
July 1, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pc_user says...
Whois, would you have the same views if (heaven forbid) the lives of the members of your immediate family abruptly ended due to a drunk driver crashing into them?
July 1, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
meow says...
When they say "past offenders," how far in the past will they go? Is this something that will be permanent and life-long for alcohol offenders, or will they only have to have it for a few years? I'm just thinking about the former alcoholics who have been dry for years, or of people who may have had a few DUI's during college, etc. - are they going to be stuck paying $75/mo. to lease equipment over something they did 10 years ago?
Don't get me wrong, I think this is a great idea for recent offenders and will save lives, but there are some questions that have been left unanswered.
July 1, 2009 at 8:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
Whois.......you are wrong....the interlock company will make A LOT OF MONEY. It's almost $200 to install and $80+ dollars a month in perpetuity.
It needs to be prescribed with care.....and some Judges are abit calivier about it.
It is not supposed to be a sentence in perpetuity.
I have a friend who had 4 DUIs...ended up 4 months in prison and 10 YEARS w/o a drivers license. He paid the price and did not touch an automobile during that period...and has not touched a drink since he walked out of prison.
Nevertheless...the Judge imposed a new sentence..."just in case".
By the way, in his 4 DUIs there was no damage...no wreck...no accident and certainly no one hurt.
Since he lives at the Lake of the Ozarks...there is no public transportation. His job required driving a truck...so he was demoted to a lesser job...lower pay. And 10 years without a possibility of promotion. And, of course a long walk to work..especially in the dead of winter.
Paying the price to society was not good enough for the Judge who said....."just in case", I will impose additional hardships and significant cost.
There is a place for this device but I'm disappointed they rush to impose it without discreation.
July 1, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pc_user says...
grannytuff, which is it? "Totally ridiculous" or "I understand how people who have lost loved ones, etc".
To me it sounds like you're saying "fill in the blank" is totally ridiculous, unless it happens to YOU?
July 1, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
granny tuff..... did you read for comprehension?
second sentence....."The law will require future and past offenders with MORE THAN ONE ALCOHOL RELATED OFFENSE in Missouri to have an ignition interlock system installed in their cars. "
NOT ONE MISTAKE.
anyone who gets more than one DUI has a problem with alcohol. that is the definition of substance abuse.......... and one of the most effective aids for help in conquering addiction is to have distinct and immediate repercussions for making bad decisions.
you drink and drive, get caught multiple times, you pay. jail, prison, this device, all are the direct result of an individual's truly bad decisions.
July 1, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannytuff says...
The "totally ridiculous" comment is due to the fact that any passsenger in the car can blow into that machine and get the car to start and run. How is that going to help any situation. It simply it is not going to work as it is expected. When I was young, if my father took me with him to be his "starter" I would have done it because I would have been afraid to refuse. How is that helping anything or anybody? People will find ways to get around this.
July 1, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
granny, the point of the contunuing need to blow is to help prevent circumventing the machine. sure, you could get someone ( young or an idiot) to give you an initial puff for a start, but that person would have to be with you in the car in order for you to continue to drive it for more than another few minutes.
maybe a kid would be able to be coerced into doing that, but hopefully a drunk who has a sober person in the car would be persuaded to simply let the sober person take the wheel?????? what sober person in their right mind would sit in a ticking time bomb with a drunk driver at the wheel? think about it.
July 1, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
Another minor, but significant dimension of this device....it reacts to other things....like mouthwash, certain foods/drinks....other than alochol.
When that happens the car doesn't not start.
But that's not the end...it also records an "incident" and when the operator checks in at the end of the month (they have to re-boot each 30 days) a drop of mouth wash results in another day off work to go to court and explain the incident.
The principle behind the device is , of course , appropriate but the implementation and operation is not so wonderful.
Another "minor" thing is for an employee who normally operates a Company vehicle.....cannot have the device installed because other employees normally drive the same vehicle. Seemingly a normal process suddendly becomes a major impairment.
This thing sounds good superficially....but it has a lot of flaws in actual implementation.
July 1, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
lbc, most of your points regarding false positives are actually used by lawyers who continually work to get these drivers back on the road by using the loopholes you enumerate.
use alcohol free mouthwash.
the major impairment lies with the person who drove "IMPAIRED", repeatedly. there Should be consequences for their bad decisions.........
we are not talking about single dui infractions here. this is about repeat drunk driving violations.
July 1, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
While most cities and states are looking to reduce the number of distractions for drivers by banning cell phones, Missouri is implementing a law to increase distractions. This is what we all need, the guy with a former DUI, driving down the Belt, talking on his cell phone, and reaching for the Interlock device:sounds like a perfect storm! Personally, I think I would rather take my chances with a drunken driver.
While I do not encourage drinking and driving, I do believe that lobbying groups such as MADD have had too much of an impact on the DUI laws. It's no wonder there are repeat offenders, after shelling out the cost in court fees, lawyers, fines, classes, and then losing a job because they can no longer drive:I'd go back to drinking as well. If you ask me, our criminal system is harder on these individuals than murders and sex offenders. Heck, at least the latter group receives "rehabilitation" classes on the tax payer's dime, while receiving three square meals a day, and a roof over their head.
Yes, I agree that repeat offenders need stiff penalties but obviously the stiff penalties for a first time offense are not working. If they were, then why do so many people have multiple DUI's? However, I don't see these lobbying groups working to offer alternative approaches, instead they just keep advocating higher fines and penalties. Is it a coincidence that they don't purpose alternatives but yet they and the state reap the benefits of higher fines?
July 1, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gocubbies says...
I wonder how far in the past. If they have had more than one conviction, they should be required to have this installed as long as they are still serving there sentence. I feel that if a person has been convicted of a DUI and have served their entire sentence, they should not be required. To me, this is a violation of the Double Jeopardy law. They have been convicted, sentenced and served. They can not be charged again for the same crime.
If it's not a violation, what's next? Will I have to go to driving school because I received a speeding ticket 20 years ago?
July 1, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
Heritage.....your statements are indeed correct, but from the tone, you seemed to missed the point I was making...
My friend did indeed commit several violations....and, it's appropriate to note none were accidents, no one was hurt, no property damage. Not an excuse, but a factor.
Now, he served TEN years sentence. No driving for ten years. Could not advance in his employment, often missed meals because he lives in an area without public transportation. Had virtually no social life....difficult to take a vacation and certainly no average weekend activities.... No complaint....just facts.
After ten years....he was compelled by the Judge to install the device....at his expense, and at this writing is still forced to use it. Alochol free mouthwash...yep, figured that out after the first inconvience. Had several other mis-steps as the result of the device not being fool proof.
So, His ten year sentence, duly served, turned out to be only part of his penalty. Given his absolutely impecabble record...for ten years, I think he deserves some consideration.
As I said the judges comment was pretty calivier..."Oh, well, it can't hurt". Well, it can hurt. It has cost this person another $1200 and a series of inconveniences...all beyond his original ten year sentence.
July 1, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannytuff says...
heritage, no need to scream, we can read perfectly fine. Apparently you think your opinion is the only one that matters, so I will let it be, because I will not argue with you. You have your oninion and I have mine. I am open to both sides of an issue, you obviously only one. Good day.
July 1, 2009 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
grannytuff says...
lbc - very few that post here understand that when someone has served their time, and followed the conditions set by the court their sentence has been completed. They think you should pay for the rest of your life. God says "forgive" but maybe they don't believe in that.
I look at the best in people and offer a second chance to all. Bitterness and hatred will not help the situation at all. It just makes it worse.
"Be the change you want to see in the world."
July 1, 2009 at 4:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
inside out....." If they were, then why do so many people have multiple DUI's?"
um....... because they are A L C O H O L I C S .
lbc, i agree that our justice system is flawed. i haven't read this particular legislation, but i would wager that, like so many these days, it is badly crafted and leaves far too much "slack" in the reins of justice.
i have to say that your friend was simply lucky that he didn't kill someone. sounds like he is working the program, staying sober and has the good fortune not to have such a horrible memory to deal with. i wish him luck and sobriety.
just remember that an addict is never sober for more than the day behind them. that is why they call it recovering rather than cured.
July 1, 2009 at 4:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dreammid says...
insideout....I'M WITH YA.
heritage...Just because people drink or make more than one mistake doen't make them A L C O H O L I C S ...it makes them human in my book an they should be forgiven..along with some major changes in the law.
I understand there need to be changes but what they are doing I believe is more harm than good., But the Majority will rule.., or does it?
July 1, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StJoeMoe says...
Yes, another follow the money trail deal, totally annoying.
What happens if you have a nice small can of compressed air, can you trick the machine into thinking you've blow into it?
Nothing - I repeat - NOTHING will stop a drunk from driving IF they want too.
July 1, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
apmastrangelo says...
Moe - Actually there is; start with a 6 month sentence after a first offense and not only will the opportunity not exist for that individual to drive under the influence, they will also have plenty of time to think about it.
Anyone having lost a loved one or friend from such circumstances best understands: 2007 - 15,387 Missouri 12th in losses for the that year.
July 1, 2009 at 8:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
insideout says...
Heritage - Not every multiple offender is an ALCOHOLIC but thank you for proving my point! How many "diseases" have ever been solved by charging the afflicted an outrageous fine and/or locking them away? For a true alcoholic, these penalties do very little, besides driving more and more people to the welfare system.
In fact, I'd really like to see the ratio of alcoholics to non-alcoholics that have DUI's. Many alcoholics are adapted to functioning in a constant state of drunkenness even to the point that sometimes it's difficult to recognize that they have been drinking. I'd venture to say, there are more non-alcoholics caught because these individuals are often binge drinking and their bodies are not accustom to a drunken state.
For every person, that is "impaired" at .08 (or .04)...I could probably show you at least 20 that are not.
I'm not trying to defend drinking and driving...it's STUPID but some of the efforts to stop it are not much better or effective.
July 1, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guarded says...
I personaaly do not think people that are convicted of DUI's should go to prison if they did not cause an injury accident. Our prisons are filled with people that should be there but because you have a drinking problem is not one of them. Use the halfway houses to get them treatment. Prison will stop them from drinking until they get out but then what? Because I know they are not getting the help they need in prison that is why we have multiple offenders. Drinking is a choice to many and an addiction to others. If you are addicted and get no treatment then you are still addicted and will do it again.
July 2, 2009 at 6:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
classyt says...
I fail to see how this device is going to help stop dui offenders. All the offenders have to do is drive a different vehicle. A second car is easy to obtain without their name even being on it. It is just another bandaide affect that will cost people money and help little with the real problem. If a person is a real alcoholic they need help it is a real sickness that will not be solved by penalties.
July 2, 2009 at 7:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bdog says...
although drunk drivers do cause a lot of accidents, and deaths, excessive speed causes more deaths, yet they do not punish speeders the same as drunk drivers, although like drunk drivers speeders aslo know they are breaking the law speeding to get somewhere sooner than the speed limit allows, i feel very sorry for those who have lost lives due to a drunk driver, but how about the feelings of those who have lost lives due to excessive speeds, there are twice as many deaths caused by excessive speeding than those lost by drunk drivers, but the law does nothing to speeders except a small fine, seems like according to the justice system those lives lost by speeders do not really count, but the way i look at it a wrongful death is still a death caused by a drunk driver or a speeding driver, they
are both intentionally breaking the law, however i would hate to see either punished for the rest of their lives, i would not call either murders, as the deaths were caused simply by accident not intentionally, but by being careless
July 2, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
justsayin says...
An alcoholic or problem drinker will always find a way to drink and do exactly what he wants to do when he wants to do it--including driving, biking, or waterskiing while drunk. One of the features of addiction is the ability to successfully manipulate situations to the benefit of the addict. So a little inconvenience like this is not an impediment to a true drunk--just causes the cost of drinking to increase.
A true alcoholic will do something brilliant--buy an old beater vehicle, license it, install the device, and park the vehicle except for those times when he has to meet with the parole officer.
Of course, no one is as devious and manipulative as our legislative officials, so I am sure they wrote this legislation so that the device must be installed on all vehicles with that person's name on the registration. How's that for keepin' a man down.
July 2, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )