Thinking about drinking and driving? A new state policy went into effect Tuesday that may make repeat offenders rethink getting behind the wheel after a night on the town.
The provision that just went into effect requires a repeat DUI offender to undergo a drug and alcohol assessment and treatment, if necessary.
Additionally, a judge is required to order the use of an ignition interlock device to those individuals whose licenses get reinstated to be used for six months following revocation.
A repeat offender is defined as anyone who has earned a second (or more) DUI conviction within the last five years.
Repeat offenders will be required to install the interlock device, which functions as a personalized breathalyzer test, on every car they drive, excluding company cars.
Mike Boyle, Memphis’ assistant district attorney general, said the purpose of the law is to prevent those with a history of such activity from drinking and driving.
“The new provisions serve as another check for repeat offenders, at least for six months after they are legally able to drive,” Boyle said. “If the assessment program doesn’t solve the problem, the interlock devices will.”
Boyle said judges always had the interlock devices as an option for enforcing DUI laws, however the provisions that went into effect Tuesday now require the judges to order the devices’ use.
Although Boyle seemed positive about the new provisions, skepticism remains in Memphis. Memphis attorney Philip Shanks said these new provisions wouldn’t deter any drinking and driving activity.
“The DUI offenders I come into contact with fall into two categories: the social drinker who was unlucky in having their number come up and the hardened drinker,” Shanks said. “This group couldn’t care less about the laws, and they’ll find a way to beat them.”
Shanks said this “new wrinkle” in the law might stop one out of 100 DUI offenders. Although he acknowledged that stopping that one person is good, he said the chronic alcoholic can never be stopped.
In addition to the functional application of the new law, Shanks said he doubts whether the interlock devices will be monitored properly, and therefore questions the accuracy they will have.
“Laws and people’s lives are now being effected by a machine that is kept in a car that runs over potholes and can be bumped around enough to throw its calibration out of whack,” Shanks said. “I wouldn’t want any other piece of machinery that is maintained in such a way to be a determining factor in my health status, like an MRI or CAT scan.”
Shanks said he doubts the devices will be serviced according to their maintenance plans.
“The ones we subpoena are never up to date, maintenance wise,” Shanks said.
Shanks said he has sensitivity toward the issue of drinking and driving, as his mother was crippled due to an accident involving a drunk driver. However, he said he believes in the right of those wrongly accused of DUIs to be justified.
“I don’t want to see drunks driving around at their own will,” Shanks said. “But I’d rather see drunks driving around at their own will than for people to be wrongly accused of DUI.”
A second provision that will take effect next year will lower the legal limit for drunken driving from a blood-alcohol content of .10 percent to .08 percent.
Boyle said this will not mean it will be impermissible to drink two glasses of wine at dinner, but Shanks was quick to disagree.
“I’ll take that bet,” Shanks said. “Right now, two beers will put you over. With the new policy, church goers who take communion would be smart to get a designated, non-excommunicated member of the congregation to take them home after services.”
The provision regarding the blood-alcohol content levels will take effect July 3, 2003.
